I was first introduced to Mr. O'Reilly during the Bush-Gore "hanging chad" controversy following the 2004 Presidential Election and, at that time, he seemed to have his head screwed on straight, offering civil discussion and commentary on both sides of an issue. That was in the days when he touted "The O'Reilly Factor" as "A No-spin Zone". The letter "A" is important here. Subsequent to that time, and perhaps as a function of reading his own press and the reports of his influence as a commentator, he began warning his TV audience that they are about to enter "THE No-spin Zone". The claim to exclusivity it seems to me is indicative of how this once reasonable and even-handed TV show has evolved into a kind of cult of the personality for it's star. In the course of this transformation, Mr. O's use of "I" (what an old Army commander of mine used to call "the vertical pronoun") has become more and more frequent. These days, his discussions overflow with phrases like: "As I predicted..." or "I buried ____in that debate..." or "I think that means..." or "Here's where (I think) you're wrong...". He is so anxious to let us know what "I's" view of a particular issue is, that he, increasingly, talks over even the people who, in general, agree with him! When Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Bernie Goldberg have to fight to finish their sentences before being interrupted by their host with his superior interpretation, one wonders why they were asked to give their opinions in the first place! Imagine how he treats those, like Alan Colmes, who have the temerity to disagree with "The Pontiff"! Indeed, Mr. O'Reilly famously lost control recently in a heated argument with Mr. Colmes, calling the liberal commentator a liar in a finger pointing and desk pounding exchange over the federal budget and where cuts, if any, would be made. All he needed to have done to make the tantrum complete would have been to use his shoe a la Nikita Khrushchev at the UN.
Another indicator, to me, of the "new" Mr. O'Reilly and his approach to discussing the news of the day with his guests, is a combination of the "I" oriented self-aggrandisement cited above, and a peculiar kind denigration he practices with several of the "regulars" who appear on "The Factor". This is his habit of callling them only by their surnames. He does this to several people including Lis Wiehl, Alan Colmes, and Steve Doocy and often in the context of a Pontifical Challange such as saying something like: "OK, Wiehl where am I (there's that word again) going wrong?" Aside from the implication that Mr. O couldn't possibly be wrong, what bothers me, I guess, is that I was taught that addressing someone by his last name is a form of disrespect. It's how I was addressed fifty years ago by my drill sergeant in basic training when the assumption (usually correct) was that no new recruit knows anything about what he will have to do to get through the next four months and is, therefore, not worthy of respect. But, it is NOT how you address colleagues and peers.
Oh, but wait!! I just realized I'm being unjust. Mr. O'Reilly can speak to these folks in that way because, in his world, HE HAS NO PEER!