Bill O’Reilly has his friends and definitely his enemies, but one thing for sure is, he is the most disrespectful news program host in all of cable TV. Even though I cannot stand a single fiber of what this so-called man is made of, I will keep this article as neutral as possible. Now, I usually try to ignore anything this guy says, but with recent comments of his, I can no longer contain myself. My intention is to have people understand that this guy is really not the moderate traditionalist that he claims to be, and is not to be trusted in many aspects of his “journalism”.

As I was going through my daily news gatherings, I noticed Bill O’Reilly ranting again on a certain issue that made me “fly off the handle”. Although his rantings are usually about politics or history for which he has been well educated, his information can get a little manipulative in order to fit his topic of the day like the whole Malmedy issue. But, for the most part, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Yet this particular horrifying, tyrannical verbiage was of a special kind. Now, this self-proclaimed third most powerful person in America, is all of a sudden stepping out of his comfort zone and into child psychology and traumatic stress syndromes. This verbal massacre was just unacceptable by me and my usually bitten tongue.

The O’Reilly issue that got me so infuriated is that of Shawn Hornbeck. On the O’Reilly Factor a couple of days ago, Bill said that he doesn’t believe in the Stockholm Syndrome and that Hornbeck, Smart and some other kidnapping victims were choosing to stay with their captors because “the situation was more exciting than their regular lives”. Here is some of the transcript:

Bill O’Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don’t buy it, I never bought it, I don’t think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don’t think it happened here…

Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something?

Bill O’Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in.

GVS: First of all, we don’t know all the facts, Don’t forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome –

BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn’t gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned — and this is why I don’t believe in Stockholm — this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He’s got these piercings — this is a troubled kid in my opinion –

GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website, I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer… let’s not forget he is a kid…. He may be 15 now…

BOR: No, I am not buying this. If you’re 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You’re riding your bike around, you got friends — the kid didn’t go to school. There’s all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you’re 11 –

BOR: I didn’t buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.

GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and likewise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity — nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run…?

BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she’s in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is, looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his own parents. He didn’t have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

Let me educate Bill and the rest of his followers. The Stockholm Syndrome is real and after reading a book by Natalie Angier called Woman: An Intimate Geography, I have a deeper understanding of the workings of the mind and it’s neurotransmitters during traumatic situations.

There are neurotransmitters called oxytocin and vasopressin that are related to high levels of stress and/or pain. These two hormones are mostly related to the process of child birth and are attributed to creating the bonding of the mother to the child among other things. In general, when a mammal is in an extreme situation that causes high levels of stress or pain, the body releases oxytocin and vasopresin to help regulate blood pressure, reduce cortisol levels, increase tolerance for pain and reduce anxiety. A side effect of this is an unusual bonding of the person experiencing the pain (mother or victim) and the person causing the pain/stress (baby or perpetrator). Although there is still research on the relationship of these neural hormones and their actions on the brain, I think this qualifies for serious consideration when we discuss people reacting to traumic situations. Here is what Wikipedia had to say about oxytocin and vasopressin:

“…oxytocin is involved in social recognition and bonding, and might be involved in the formation of trust between people.

In people, plasma concentrations of oxytocin have been reported to be higher amongst people who claim to be falling in love.

Various anti-stress functions. Oxytocin reduces blood pressure and cortisol levels, increasing tolerance to pain, and reducing anxiety. Oxytocin may play a role in encouraging “tend and befriend”, as opposed to “fight or flight”, behavior, in response to stress.

Increasing trust and reducing fear. In a risky investment game, experimental subjects given nasally administered oxytocin, displayed “the highest level of trust” twice as often as the control group.” - Wikipedia.com

So, does this sound so “off-the-wall” anymore? Considering this is not Bill’s expertise, real science and all, he probably does not know of this neural hormone. Which is fine, I do not expect Bill to know everything. I just want him to shut his mouth when he steps outside his expertise, and leave the psychology and its science to the professionals. if you are going to tell everyone how it is, you need to do a little research before you start your verbal ranting like diarrhea of the mouth. I also feel that when someone takes a stand on an issue, especially one as controversial as this one, they should either apologize or stand by what they say and own up to it. But, of course, Bill will always do what Bill has always done — deny he ever said it.