Bill O'Reilly

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Apparently has been pulling a Brian Williams:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Apparently has been pulling a Brian Williams:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

He'll probably get a raise.

[AUUSN 823]

And sell more merch...

[Mikey 16,576]

You need to get a source that isn't famous for lying. Most people know better than to believe Mother Jones. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly but I do find it funny that Mother Jones would accuse someone else of lying. Assuming that's what they did, of course. I didn't click on their site. Don't feed the trolls and alla' that.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

You need to get a source that isn't famous for lying. Most people know better than to believe Mother Jones. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly but I do find it funny that Mother Jones would accuse someone else of lying. Assuming that's what they did, of course. I didn't click on their site. Don't feed the trolls and alla' that.

They demonstrated O'Reilly's lies with evidence. Can you demonstrate theirs or are you just flinging poo?

[Mikey 16,576]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

You are more dedicated than I am. I wait until the news comes from some outfit that I might believe.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

You are more dedicated than I am. I wait until the news comes from some outfit that I might believe. :)/>

And fling poo in the meantime.

[Mikey 16,576]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

You are more dedicated than I am. I wait until the news comes from some outfit that I might believe. :)/>

And fling poo in the meantime.

Only flung at deserving targets.

[autigeremt 6,598]

You need to get a source that isn't famous for lying. Most people know better than to believe Mother Jones. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly but I do find it funny that Mother Jones would accuse someone else of lying. Assuming that's what they did, of course. I didn't click on their site. Don't feed the trolls and alla' that.

They demonstrated O'Reilly's lies with evidence. Can you demonstrate theirs or are you just flinging poo?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/20/oreilly-denounces-mother-jones-story-on-his-war-reporting/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

[AURaptor 1,122]

Apparently has been pulling a Brian Williams:

http://www.motherjon...s-falklands-war

Standard Leftist tactic. Divert attention away from one of their own who got caught, and try to phony up some equivalent scandal on the Right.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Apparently has been pulling a Brian Williams:

http://www.motherjon...s-falklands-war

Standard Leftist tactic. Divert attention away from one of their own who got caught, and try to phony up some equivalent scandal on the Right.

More like half-truths. It's not dishonest reporting....just half false.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Misleading or confusing, but at the end of the day, he doesn't put himself on a chopper that was shot down.

And one key difference ? O'Reilly isn't sitting behind a NEWS desk, today, trying to impartially give the news. He hasn't been, for quite some time. Maybe at no time since being in the employment of FOX. He gives his OPINIONS.

This only goes to show how petty are the Left.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

He has an opinion show, but part of his 'bonafides' if you will is that he is a journalist by trade. He has experience. He's "impartial" and qualified to speak on serious matters.

I agree that he doesn't have the same prominence as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. But that doesn't mean he can just make s*** up. And it especially means he can't be taking potshots at Williams if he's doing the same kind of thing himself.

[autigeremt 6,598]

This is so typical. It's just another ratings shell game and the people talking about it are pawns. Moving along.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

He has an opinion show, but part of his 'bonafides' if you will is that he is a journalist by trade. He has experience. He's "impartial" and qualified to speak on serious matters.

I agree that he doesn't have the same prominence as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. But that doesn't mean he can just make s*** up. And it especially means he can't be taking potshots at Williams if he's doing the same kind of thing himself.

He says it wasn't made up but you seem happy with rejecting his rebuttal and accept what Mother Jones has printed. Again, if I had to pick a side, which Im not because as Ive already said, I couldn't care less, I'd pick O'Reilly as MJ has been a notorious water boy and liar for the left. O'Reilly has an editorial show and he's fine by me until the MJ story is proven I'll look at it like I do EVERYTHING else of theirs Ive ever read...with very little interest because of their extremely overt liberal biases.

Oh and BTW I did happen to watch his show when he covered BW story and he did NOT take a single potshot, as you call it, at BW. In fact, he said he knew him and liked him and hated to see anybody but especially a friend torn apart by a story like that.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

He has an opinion show, but part of his 'bonafides' if you will is that he is a journalist by trade. He has experience. He's "impartial" and qualified to speak on serious matters.

I agree that he doesn't have the same prominence as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. But that doesn't mean he can just make s*** up. And it especially means he can't be taking potshots at Williams if he's doing the same kind of thing himself.

He says it wasn't made up but you seem happy with rejecting his rebuttal and accept what Mother Jones has printed. Again, if I had to pick a side, which Im not because as Ive already said, I couldn't care less, I'd pick O'Reilly as MJ has been a notorious water boy and liar for the left. O'Reilly has an editorial show and he's fine by me until the MJ story is proven I'll look at it like I do EVERYTHING else of theirs Ive ever read...with very little interest because of their extremely overt liberal biases.

Oh and BTW I did happen to watch his show when he covered BW story and he did NOT take a single potshot, as you call it, at BW. In fact, he said he knew him and liked him and hated to see anybody but especially a friend torn apart by a story like that.

I'm not accepting anything. But it's been called into question by various people who would be in a position to know. So if he's got evidence to show that his claims are true, he needs to put them forth especially since he has decided to weigh in on this.

Here's the segment in full http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-brian-williams-should-get-us-questioning-other-news-distortions/

If you're going to say that this situation should call the credibility of various news outlets into question, then you open yourself up to the same scrutiny.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I'm sort of weirded out by the assertion that Bill O'Reilly is not one of the primary faces of Fox News. I'm pretty sure he's been around longer than anyone else.

I don't like the guy, but I think this (and the Brian Williams thing too) were blown way out of proportion. Oh, shucks, now they are a little less credible. I guess I will have to start doing crazy things like checking for myself the information they give.

I will give it to bill, though- some of my favorite clips are when he and Jon Stewart have each other on their shows. Get Bill out of his No Spin Zone, and he actually can be personable.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

He has an opinion show, but part of his 'bonafides' if you will is that he is a journalist by trade. He has experience. He's "impartial" and qualified to speak on serious matters.

I agree that he doesn't have the same prominence as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. But that doesn't mean he can just make s*** up. And it especially means he can't be taking potshots at Williams if he's doing the same kind of thing himself.

He says it wasn't made up but you seem happy with rejecting his rebuttal and accept what Mother Jones has printed. Again, if I had to pick a side, which Im not because as Ive already said, I couldn't care less, I'd pick O'Reilly as MJ has been a notorious water boy and liar for the left. O'Reilly has an editorial show and he's fine by me until the MJ story is proven I'll look at it like I do EVERYTHING else of theirs Ive ever read...with very little interest because of their extremely overt liberal biases.

Oh and BTW I did happen to watch his show when he covered BW story and he did NOT take a single potshot, as you call it, at BW. In fact, he said he knew him and liked him and hated to see anybody but especially a friend torn apart by a story like that.

I'm not accepting anything. But it's been called into question by various people who would be in a position to know. So if he's got evidence to show that his claims are true, he needs to put them forth especially since he has decided to weigh in on this.

Here's the segment in full http://www.mediaite....ws-distortions/

If you're going to say that this situation should call the credibility of various news outlets into question, then you open yourself up to the same scrutiny.

Show me where O'Reilly EVER suggested that Brian William's self aggrandizement called the credibility of NBC News into question. Let, me help you out, he NEVER did so you're basing your argument based on a straw man. Next. Im sure O'Reilly will address the story. maybe thats a good enough reason for you to watch his show.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

He has an opinion show, but part of his 'bonafides' if you will is that he is a journalist by trade. He has experience. He's "impartial" and qualified to speak on serious matters.

I agree that he doesn't have the same prominence as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. But that doesn't mean he can just make s*** up. And it especially means he can't be taking potshots at Williams if he's doing the same kind of thing himself.

He says it wasn't made up but you seem happy with rejecting his rebuttal and accept what Mother Jones has printed. Again, if I had to pick a side, which Im not because as Ive already said, I couldn't care less, I'd pick O'Reilly as MJ has been a notorious water boy and liar for the left. O'Reilly has an editorial show and he's fine by me until the MJ story is proven I'll look at it like I do EVERYTHING else of theirs Ive ever read...with very little interest because of their extremely overt liberal biases.

Oh and BTW I did happen to watch his show when he covered BW story and he did NOT take a single potshot, as you call it, at BW. In fact, he said he knew him and liked him and hated to see anybody but especially a friend torn apart by a story like that.

I'm not accepting anything. But it's been called into question by various people who would be in a position to know. So if he's got evidence to show that his claims are true, he needs to put them forth especially since he has decided to weigh in on this.

Here's the segment in full http://www.mediaite....ws-distortions/

If you're going to say that this situation should call the credibility of various news outlets into question, then you open yourself up to the same scrutiny.

Show me where O'Reilly EVER suggested that Brian William's self aggrandizement called the credibility of NBC News into question. Let, me help you out, he NEVER did so you're basing your argument based on a straw man. Next. Im sure O'Reilly will address the story. maybe thats a good enough reason for you to watch his show.

Yes, he did:

...Look, every news organization makes mistakes. But those mistakes are eroding the confidence of Americans in the press.

If you can't trust a news anchor or commentator, you're not going to watch that person.

NBC News made $200 million dollars in 2013 on the Nightly News with Mr. Williams.

That was $30 million more than ABC, $50 million more than CBS.

So obviously NBC did not want Williams off the air.

But they had to take him off because if they didn't, it would insult you the viewer.

Reporting the news comes with a big responsibility. The Founding Fathers made that point very clearly.

They said to us, we will give you freedom, we will protect you from government intrusion but in return you must be honest.

President John Adams got so angry with the press he tried to shut it down, but the balance of powers stopped Mr. Adams from doing that.

Here on The Factor we are in our 19th season, an amazing run and we have made some mistakes in the past, but very few.

We put together an honest broadcast and we take great pains to present you with information that can be verified.

All Americans who love their country should think about what happened to Brian Williams … to think about other news agencies that are distorting the facts.

We all should open that proverbial “Network” window and say, “We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!”

http://www.billoreilly.com/b/Why-the-Brian-Williams-Story-Is-Important-for-America/-756063959256727968.html

If those bolded statements aren't suggesting that NBC's credibility is on the line because of Brian Williams, you have your head in the dirt. It's exactly what he's saying. If they didn't get rid of Williams after this viewers wouldn't trust them. No strawman. Now stop your word parsing games and just admit that if you're going to point at this situation as some sort of "trust" crisis for NBC News, then you need to make sure you aren't also making stuff up. You invite the scrutiny on yourself. If you can withstand it, great. But if your claims are called into question, then you better have something to back it up.

This isn't a standard I'm unfairly holding O'Reilly to while letting others off. It's a minimum standard anyone that is going to weigh in on the sins and mistakes of others has to be prepared for. Not just in journalism, but in life.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Mother Jones simply quotes O'Reilly from his books and appearances on TV, then compares that to what is known about access reporters had to the war zone in the Falklands.

I don't, except in the rarest of cases, just dismiss something out of hand simply because it comes from a ritually impure source.

I cant tell if you're suggesting the Mother Jones story has merit or not but the main difference is Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor and is not the face of FOX News compared to the position that Brian Williams held for NBC. O'Reilly is a blowhard and really gets under people's skin. I don't routinely watch his show but I have seen it. He's an entertainer who editorializes. IOW he simply expresses his opinions as opposed to reporting hard news. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he lied or not and in the case of Brian Williams, frankly, Im shocked he didn't get a promotion in as much as NBC is a major player in covering for this administration with convenient lies of omission by not even reporting what the news actually is. Besides, they knew his stories were false and did nothing to stop him him. He has been a career self aggrandizer and as long as it was helping them keep their ratings afloat they were fine with it.

He has an opinion show, but part of his 'bonafides' if you will is that he is a journalist by trade. He has experience. He's "impartial" and qualified to speak on serious matters.

I agree that he doesn't have the same prominence as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. But that doesn't mean he can just make s*** up. And it especially means he can't be taking potshots at Williams if he's doing the same kind of thing himself.

He says it wasn't made up but you seem happy with rejecting his rebuttal and accept what Mother Jones has printed. Again, if I had to pick a side, which Im not because as Ive already said, I couldn't care less, I'd pick O'Reilly as MJ has been a notorious water boy and liar for the left. O'Reilly has an editorial show and he's fine by me until the MJ story is proven I'll look at it like I do EVERYTHING else of theirs Ive ever read...with very little interest because of their extremely overt liberal biases.

Oh and BTW I did happen to watch his show when he covered BW story and he did NOT take a single potshot, as you call it, at BW. In fact, he said he knew him and liked him and hated to see anybody but especially a friend torn apart by a story like that.

I'm not accepting anything. But it's been called into question by various people who would be in a position to know. So if he's got evidence to show that his claims are true, he needs to put them forth especially since he has decided to weigh in on this.

Here's the segment in full http://www.mediaite....ws-distortions/

If you're going to say that this situation should call the credibility of various news outlets into question, then you open yourself up to the same scrutiny.

Show me where O'Reilly EVER suggested that Brian William's self aggrandizement called the credibility of NBC News into question. Let, me help you out, he NEVER did so you're basing your argument based on a straw man. Next. Im sure O'Reilly will address the story. maybe thats a good enough reason for you to watch his show.

Yes, he did:

...Look, every news organization makes mistakes. But those mistakes are eroding the confidence of Americans in the press.

If you can't trust a news anchor or commentator, you're not going to watch that person.

NBC News made $200 million dollars in 2013 on the Nightly News with Mr. Williams.

That was $30 million more than ABC, $50 million more than CBS.

So obviously NBC did not want Williams off the air.

But they had to take him off because if they didn't, it would insult you the viewer.

Reporting the news comes with a big responsibility. The Founding Fathers made that point very clearly.

They said to us, we will give you freedom, we will protect you from government intrusion but in return you must be honest.

President John Adams got so angry with the press he tried to shut it down, but the balance of powers stopped Mr. Adams from doing that.

Here on The Factor we are in our 19th season, an amazing run and we have made some mistakes in the past, but very few.

We put together an honest broadcast and we take great pains to present you with information that can be verified.

All Americans who love their country should think about what happened to Brian Williams … to think about other news agencies that are distorting the facts.

We all should open that proverbial “Network” window and say, “We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!”

http://www.billoreil...9256727968.html

If those bolded statements aren't suggesting that NBC's credibility is on the line because of Brian Williams, you have your head in the dirt. It's exactly what he's saying. If they didn't get rid of Williams after this viewers wouldn't trust them. No strawman. Now stop your word parsing games and just admit that if you're going to point at this situation as some sort of "trust" crisis for NBC News, then you need to make sure you aren't also making stuff up. You invite the scrutiny on yourself. If you can withstand it, great. But if your claims are called into question, then you better have something to back it up.

This isn't a standard I'm unfairly holding O'Reilly to while letting others off. It's a minimum standard anyone that is going to weigh in on the sins and mistakes of others has to be prepared for. Not just in journalism, but in life.

Well not surprisingly your disdain shows through loud and clear. Apples and oranges because of the vast difference in the positions they hold. How many people do you honestly believe think take O'Reilly seriously in the first place? He's not reporting the news but by contrast is entertaining conservatives much like Limbaugh does. Liberals hate him for that because they're arguably the most thinned skinned and miserable people on the planet. You dont like him either, I get that loud and clear by your opinions. No problem. This story wont affect me one way or the other as it specifically relates to whether or not I'll watch his show. I only do on occasion anyway. BTW, I never watched BW and wouldn't be watching him if he were still with NBC, so his story doesn't mean squat to me either.

[homersapien 11,362]

Well not surprisingly your disdain shows through loud and clear. Apples and oranges because of the vast difference in the positions they hold. How many people do you honestly believe think take O'Reilly seriously in the first place? He's not reporting the news but by contrast is entertaining conservatives much like Limbaugh does. Liberals hate him for that because they're arguably the most thinned skinned and miserable people on the planet. You dont like him either, I get that loud and clear by your opinions. No problem. This story wont affect me one way or the other as it specifically relates to whether or not I'll watch his show. I only do on occasion anyway. BTW, I never watched BW and wouldn't be watching him if he were still with NBC, so his story doesn't mean squat to me either.

Wow. Now THAT'S SPIN!

Ironic considering O'Reilly's catch phrase.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Well not surprisingly your disdain shows through loud and clear.

You are the most exasperating, content free poster on this board sometimes and that's saying something. There is no disdain. I have no problem with O'Reilly though I rarely watch his show (or any of the news channels). It's just a simple, straightforward, common sense statement about how life works.

Apples and oranges because of the vast difference in the positions they hold.

More like a Valencia orange and a naval orange. Or a Braeburn apple vs a Fuji apple. Not being a hard news anchor does not absolve O'Reilly or anyone else of scrutiny when you decide to make the comments he's made on the Williams situation.

How many people do you honestly believe think take O'Reilly seriously in the first place?

He has some of the highest ratings in cable and it's not mainly because he's "entertaining." People believe that O'Reilly gives them the "real" deal. The "no spin zone", remember? His loyal viewers trust his take on the news more than just about anyone else in the business.

He's not reporting the news but by contrast is entertaining conservatives much like Limbaugh does. Liberals hate him for that because they're arguably the most thinned skinned and miserable people on the planet.

He mixes entertainment, but you're daft if you think he isn't putting himself out there as one that cuts through the spin and the left-wing slant and "gives it to you straight." He isn't up there doing a comedy routine. He talks about events in the news, offers his opinions and claims to be cutting through the bull****. It's an opinion show....opinion on the news of the day. But don't act like it's just some entertainment bit that no one takes seriously. That's disingenuous.

You dont like him either, I get that loud and clear by your opinions. No problem.

You don't know what I like. In fact, you couldn't be more clueless.

This story wont affect me one way or the other as it specifically relates to whether or not I'll watch his show. I only do on occasion anyway. BTW, I never watched BW and wouldn't be watching him if he were still with NBC, so his story doesn't mean squat to me either.

Immaterial. This is simply about O'Reilly weighing in on the Brian Williams situation and the trust issue it has created for NBC News vs claims O'Reilly has made about the time in his career when he was a journalist and his position and marketing of himself as one who is a truth teller in a world of spin.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

While we are on the topic of folks telling "falsehoods" how about throwing in a few posts on the POTUS.