This week, there was an internet kerfuffle over Bill O’Reilly’s statement that he hasn’t heard “anything” over at NBC about President Obama’s controversial drone policy. In fact, NBC News broke the story. Last night, O’Reilly addressed the matter in his “Tip of the Day” segment – by arguing that he had been referring to NBC analysis, not news. And you know what? I agree with him. I saw the original segment and although what he literally said was incorrect, I thought his meaning was clear within the context of the discussion. But, as my grandmother used to say in situations like this, O’Reilly started out in the right but his handling of it put him in the wrong.

Here’s a transcript of O’Reilly’s original comments to Bob Beckel, via Mediaite:

“Remember the outcry over waterboarding? You know, everybody jumping up and down? NBC News, I thought they were going to, like, melt down over there. You heard anything on NBC about the drones?”

…“So you haven’t heard anything over about this, and neither have I. Neither has my staff. Okay? So we haven’t heard anything. But we heard a lot about waterboarding, but nothing about drone strikes. How do you process that?”

To me, it’s pretty clear – especially if you watch the entire segment below – that O’Reilly was talking about opinion programming, not news reporting, despite the fact that he did not phrase it that way. However, that would have been false, too, because Mediaite pointed out that there was plenty of discussion on MSNBC about the drones. But I believe that what O’Reilly really meant was that while the left was up in arms against President Bush over waterboarding, nobody seemed to be holding the drones against President Obama.

Now, I could argue that it’s because President Obama’s thoughtful demeanor and his anti-war policies stand in stark contrast to George W. Bush’s cowboy swagger. But for the sake of argument, I’ll grant O’Reilly’s likely point for him – that there’s some partisan hypocrisy there. And I won’t dwell on the fact that I can’t see a single reason for making that point other than as yet another excuse to attack the left.

But here’s where O’Reilly blew it, in my view: Instead of taking any responsibility for what was at best inartful wording and arguing that people should look beyond quickie video clips, O’Reilly played the victim and turned the whole thing into yet another screed, sympathetically titled on FoxNews.com as "More deceit from the far left."

I hate to say it, Bill, but that sounds like spin not straight talk. And whining:

Once again, we have a propaganda campaign designed to make ignorant people on the left even more ignorant. Factor Tip of the Day: Don’t deal with loons. I have to.  You shouldn’t have to.

O’Reilly could have used the moment to point out how, in the internet age, “going viral” can take the place of “national discussion.” How someone’s thoughts can get twisted in an inflammatory soundbite for yucks and sneers rather than listened to and considered. Or used to promote an agenda. If you were looking for something to go viral at O’Reilly's expense, this was a good candidate – and it worked. If you were interested in the substance of what O'Reilly was getting at - better luck next time.

Unfortunately for O’Reilly, he doesn’t have a lot of standing to complain about this. His network does it all the time. Remember “You didn’t build that?” Even worse, Sandra Fluke? She presented an adult discussion about why contraception should be mandatory in health insurance – and O’Reilly framed the issue by painting her as a whore looking for sexual freebies. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have tried.

It’s too bad he didn't. Instead, it was just more of the same old, same old sniping.

Below are both the segments. Share your thoughts on this in the comments section. Maybe we can have the kind of real discussion O’Reilly blew off.