Bill O'Reilly

[WarTim 3,456]

From Bizarro World I thought I'd bump this thread since there was A LOT of predictable righteous indignation about Bill O'Reilly supposedly lying about his covering the Falklands war. Out of curiosity, I watched O'Reilly last night and he absolutely body slammed David Corn the author of the Mother Jones piece accusing him of lying about his reportorial career.

There is simply no comparing O'Reilly to Brian Williams for several reasons. The most notable is, Brian William's stories were questioned by members of the US Armed Services. O'Reilly was attacked by a far left wing lying liberal operating under the pretense- they got one of ours, so, one of their has to go down. Second, Brian Williams never stood by his lies and virtually admitted them, while O'Reilly stood firm and facing straight into the camera said everything he has said about his reportorial career is 100% true and even went on to produce 30+ year old written documentation proving it and then unapologetically called David Corn a far left wing liberal zealot and pathetic liar. It was great!

In closing, I am always amused by how up in arms many in this forum get when some lying liberal phony produces nothing but a hit piece absent any facts or truth and proceeds to pontificate about O'Reilly's "bonafides", or some such nonsense, mean he had not right to comment on Brian Williams since he was a liar too.. Its all so predictable and funny.

Very well stated. Thank you. There can be nothing to left to say......

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

WT....I think O'Reilly will have a lot more to say.......tonight. Watch it.

[cooltigger21 0]

The left will circle the wagons and go after anyone that they perceive as getting the truth out there. That is why they are so up in arms over what Rudy said about Obama. They know it's true and they have to stop it dead in it's tracks before it gains traction with the public.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Right on ct.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

So?

Your question has been answered. You asked for proof, I provided it. If "so?" is your response, why bother asking about it in the first place?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

There is simply no comparing O'Reilly to Brian Williams for several reasons. The most notable is, Brian William's stories were questioned by members of the US Armed Services. O'Reilly was attacked by a far left wing lying liberal operating under the pretense- they got one of ours, so, one of their has to go down.

Irrelevant. All that matters is, is what he said true, false or exaggerated? Who asked the questions doesn't matter if you can get at that.

Second, Brian Williams never stood by his lies and virtually admitted them, while O'Reilly stood firm and facing straight into the camera said everything he has said about his reportorial career is 100% true and even went on to produce 30+ year old written documentation proving it and then unapologetically called David Corn a far left wing liberal zealot and pathetic liar. It was great!

I don't care if someone stands their ground or not. Liars do that all the time. And his documentation still doesn't clear up whether his stay in Buenos Aires qualifies as being in a combat zone.

In closing, I am always amused by how up in arms many in this forum get when some lying liberal phony produces nothing but a hit piece absent any facts or truth and proceeds to pontificate about O'Reilly's "bonafides", or some such nonsense, mean he had not right to comment on Brian Williams since he was a liar too.. Its all so predictable and funny.

It's actually perfectly acceptable to examine a journalist's own background and claims if he is calling someone else on the carpet. If CBS' Scott Pelley was calling out O'Reilly or Brit Hume or Sheperd Smith over some perceived inaccuracies on the resume, it would likewise be perfectly reasonable for someone...anyone...to examine Pelley's statements and claims about his own experience to see if he's able to withstand the same scrutiny.

[channonc 466]

Brian didn't get a pass with me, and neither does Bill.

I miss the days when the journalists weren't the ones in the news, but rather reporting the news.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Bill didn't ask for a pass. He took it head on and first invited his accusers to come on his show. They refused. He won by a knockout in the first round tonight. He had film from CBS (who he was working for at the time), another former CBS reporter, and an independent analyst for a normally lib leaning site as guests. Mother Jones and David Corn were made to look like fools. Wonder if they will even respond......or will they get a pass by MSNBC et. al.

[WarTim 3,456]

Bill didn't ask for a pass. He took it head on and first invited his accusers to come on his show. They refused. He won by a knockout in the first round tonight. He had film from CBS (who he was working for at the time), another former CBS reporter, and an independent analyst for a normally lib leaning site as guests. Mother Jones and David Corn were made to look like fools. Wonder if they will even respond......or will they get a pass by MSNBC et. al.

You are correct on all points....and yes, the lib media will most certainly give them a pass.

[TheBlueVue 177]

There is simply no comparing O'Reilly to Brian Williams for several reasons. The most notable is, Brian William's stories were questioned by members of the US Armed Services. O'Reilly was attacked by a far left wing lying liberal operating under the pretense- they got one of ours, so, one of their has to go down.

Irrelevant. All that matters is, is what he said true, false or exaggerated? Who asked the questions doesn't matter if you can get at that.

Second, Brian Williams never stood by his lies and virtually admitted them, while O'Reilly stood firm and facing straight into the camera said everything he has said about his reportorial career is 100% true and even went on to produce 30+ year old written documentation proving it and then unapologetically called David Corn a far left wing liberal zealot and pathetic liar. It was great!

I don't care if someone stands their ground or not. Liars do that all the time. And his documentation still doesn't clear up whether his stay in Buenos Aires qualifies as being in a combat zone.

In closing, I am always amused by how up in arms many in this forum get when some lying liberal phony produces nothing but a hit piece absent any facts or truth and proceeds to pontificate about O'Reilly's "bonafides", or some such nonsense, mean he had not right to comment on Brian Williams since he was a liar too.. Its all so predictable and funny.

It's actually perfectly acceptable to examine a journalist's own background and claims if he is calling someone else on the carpet. If CBS' Scott Pelley was calling out O'Reilly or Brit Hume or Sheperd Smith over some perceived inaccuracies on the resume, it would likewise be perfectly reasonable for someone...anyone...to examine Pelley's statements and claims about his own experience to see if he's able to withstand the same scrutiny.

The saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" seems to also apply to fired journalists. David Corn was a FOX contributor who was fired. He cooked up this BS story and you apparently want the thing to be true too. OK, but its not and has been proven false. You can continue attempting to justify this witch hunt if it does something for you but O'Reilly's account has been confirmed by those who would know. O'Reilly is a popular target of the left because of his success as the #1 cable show. Evidently, envy runs deep with those on the left and seemingly some on the right would love to see him taken down too......maybe next time because this story is dead..

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-nbc-bureau-chief-backs-up-oreillys-account-of-falklands-war-riot/

[TitanTiger 20,499]

There is simply no comparing O'Reilly to Brian Williams for several reasons. The most notable is, Brian William's stories were questioned by members of the US Armed Services. O'Reilly was attacked by a far left wing lying liberal operating under the pretense- they got one of ours, so, one of their has to go down.

Irrelevant. All that matters is, is what he said true, false or exaggerated? Who asked the questions doesn't matter if you can get at that.

Second, Brian Williams never stood by his lies and virtually admitted them, while O'Reilly stood firm and facing straight into the camera said everything he has said about his reportorial career is 100% true and even went on to produce 30+ year old written documentation proving it and then unapologetically called David Corn a far left wing liberal zealot and pathetic liar. It was great!

I don't care if someone stands their ground or not. Liars do that all the time. And his documentation still doesn't clear up whether his stay in Buenos Aires qualifies as being in a combat zone.

In closing, I am always amused by how up in arms many in this forum get when some lying liberal phony produces nothing but a hit piece absent any facts or truth and proceeds to pontificate about O'Reilly's "bonafides", or some such nonsense, mean he had not right to comment on Brian Williams since he was a liar too.. Its all so predictable and funny.

It's actually perfectly acceptable to examine a journalist's own background and claims if he is calling someone else on the carpet. If CBS' Scott Pelley was calling out O'Reilly or Brit Hume or Sheperd Smith over some perceived inaccuracies on the resume, it would likewise be perfectly reasonable for someone...anyone...to examine Pelley's statements and claims about his own experience to see if he's able to withstand the same scrutiny.

The saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" seems to also apply to fired journalists. David Corn was a FOX contributor who was fired. He cooked up this BS story and you apparently want the thing to be true too. OK, but its not and has been proven false. You can continue attempting to justify this witch hunt if it does something for you but O'Reilly's account has been confirmed by those who would know. O'Reilly is a popular target of the left because of his success as the #1 cable show. Evidently, envy runs deep with those on the left and seemingly some on the right would love to see him taken down too......maybe next time because this story is dead..

http://www.mediaite....lands-war-riot/

Blue, you'd come off a lot smarter if you'd quit assuming dumb stuff about people just because they give you some push back. Re-read what I've said in this thread. Nothing in it could reasonably be construed as wanting the accusations against O'Reilly to be true. All I've been trying to get through that cast iron noggin of yours is that given what O'Reilly said on the air about Brian Williams' troubles, it is to be expected that he would have his own closet examined for possible skeletons. And this would be true of any journalist, from any network, with any political leaning. Lose the persecution complex and for the heaven's sake stop acting like you have one clue about what anyone that resides outside the recesses of your own cranium is really thinking or feeling. You totally suck at it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Hey Rob.....when you buying me lunch?

[WarTim 3,456]

There is simply no comparing O'Reilly to Brian Williams for several reasons. The most notable is, Brian William's stories were questioned by members of the US Armed Services. O'Reilly was attacked by a far left wing lying liberal operating under the pretense- they got one of ours, so, one of their has to go down.

Irrelevant. All that matters is, is what he said true, false or exaggerated? Who asked the questions doesn't matter if you can get at that.

Second, Brian Williams never stood by his lies and virtually admitted them, while O'Reilly stood firm and facing straight into the camera said everything he has said about his reportorial career is 100% true and even went on to produce 30+ year old written documentation proving it and then unapologetically called David Corn a far left wing liberal zealot and pathetic liar. It was great!

I don't care if someone stands their ground or not. Liars do that all the time. And his documentation still doesn't clear up whether his stay in Buenos Aires qualifies as being in a combat zone.

In closing, I am always amused by how up in arms many in this forum get when some lying liberal phony produces nothing but a hit piece absent any facts or truth and proceeds to pontificate about O'Reilly's "bonafides", or some such nonsense, mean he had not right to comment on Brian Williams since he was a liar too.. Its all so predictable and funny.

It's actually perfectly acceptable to examine a journalist's own background and claims if he is calling someone else on the carpet. If CBS' Scott Pelley was calling out O'Reilly or Brit Hume or Sheperd Smith over some perceived inaccuracies on the resume, it would likewise be perfectly reasonable for someone...anyone...to examine Pelley's statements and claims about his own experience to see if he's able to withstand the same scrutiny.

The saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" seems to also apply to fired journalists. David Corn was a FOX contributor who was fired. He cooked up this BS story and you apparently want the thing to be true too. OK, but its not and has been proven false. You can continue attempting to justify this witch hunt if it does something for you but O'Reilly's account has been confirmed by those who would know. O'Reilly is a popular target of the left because of his success as the #1 cable show. Evidently, envy runs deep with those on the left and seemingly some on the right would love to see him taken down too......maybe next time because this story is dead..

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-nbc-bureau-chief-backs-up-oreillys-account-of-falklands-war-riot/

I almost feel sorry for the leftists...almost. They fail at EVERYTHING...

[homersapien 11,393]

http://www.npr.org/2...arrant-scrutiny

Give human invective machine Bill O'Reilly credit for consistency of performance.

Facing questions about his veracity, the nation's top-rated cable news host referred to his various critics as a "guttersnipe," a "liar," a "far-left zealot" and, in the case of one former CBS News colleague, "Room Service Eric." (That last one nickname was intended to convey that O'Reilly's former colleague Eric Engberg did not have the courage to leave the hotel during outbreaks of violence.)

The Fox News opinion host's defense of his journalism consists of going on the offensive. O'Reilly's technique transcends tactic and even strategy to become his controlling philosophy: Attack first, and if you don't, hit hardest.

O'Reilly is smart and shrewd and tough, and anyone who forgets any of those characteristics misunderstands him. His behavior is of a piece with our political age, but it stands at great odds with the journalistic pursuit of fact and truth that is supposed to undergird even the opinions ventured through major media outlets.

To be fair to O'Reilly, he was incited by the politically left-of-center magazine Mother Jones, which on Thursday posted an article under the intentionally provocative headline, "Bill O'Reilly has his own Brian Williams problem." The article, by Daniel Schulman and David Corn, argued that, like the suspended NBC anchor, O'Reilly had inflated his role as a war correspondent and the dangers he had faced in areas of conflict.

That not only reflects on O'Reilly's ability to get facts right but to get them right about himself.

The case was at times tendentious; In one aspect, Mother Jonesemphasized spoken remarks in which O'Reilly seemed to blur the question of the spot from which he actually covered the Falklands War.

I'll give O'Reilly a pass for imprecision on those. The combat between Argentina and the United Kingdom took place on the Falkland Islands or at sea, and O'Reilly covered it, as did most correspondents, from the relative safety of Buenos Aires and Uruguay, more than 1,000 miles away. No example has surfaced yet of O'Reilly clearly claiming he was physically on the islands. And he can call himself a war correspondent if he wants.

The claim he was in a "war zone" doesn't pass muster, but also doesn't quite inspire outrage. Argentina was at war at the time.

A Debate About Danger

More seriously, the article cast doubt on O'Reilly's boasts (they can hardly be called anything else) of the peril he encountered as a reporter.

In one interview several years ago on a television program aired in the Hamptons, O'Reilly spoke of a young Argentine soldier, perhaps 18 or 19 years old, confronting him during street protests in Buenos Aires: "He's got the M16 [rifle] pointed at my head. I thought it was over."

O'Reilly said those riots turned deadly, that many people were killed and that he saved a badly injured cameraman by pulling him to safety.

Argentines did demonstrate angrily against the ruling junta for losing the war with the British, and footage shows protesters turning hostile and even menacing foreign reporters.

Yet CNN's Brian Stelter interviewed seven of O'Reilly's former CBS News colleagues who had been present in Argentina for the network's Falklands coverage (three spoke by name, on the record), and all took issue with O'Reilly's twinned account of death and personal danger.

None of the former CBS staffers recalled police shooting into the crowd, and there is no evidence of fatalities.

Sebastián Lacunza, editor in chief of the Buenos Aires Herald, tells me he has no record of any deaths in those protests.

"I don't remember that people were killed in protests at the end of the war," Lacunza told me by phone. "I don't remember that at all."

In an email, Argentine scholar Federico Lorenz wrote that "there were some injured people, not dead victims — five buses were burnt and that was all."

The journalist Elsa Campos wrote that the defeat in Malvinas (the Argentine term for the Falklands) "meant the end of the dictatorship by all means — we had lost the fear."

The repressive military junta, which had ruled since 1976, was forced from power soon after losing the war.

Perhaps evidence of fatalities at those June protests could emerge, but it doesn't appear O'Reilly had any when making his claims.

Reading Into The Reactions

Like Williams, O'Reilly made his most questionable remarks away from his network — for example in a book in 2001, or in an interview with Marvin Kalb in 2008 at the National Press Club.

The Saturday event was packed full, and the discussion of the Falklands coverage was a dramatic and contentious exchange, Kalb says.

"He was at his rip-roaring best," Kalb says. "I think in that environment, people tend to self-aggrandize themselves. Of course, he did it in a number of other places too."

A CBS sound engineer told CNN that he'd objected to Kalb about O'Reilly's representation of his experiences. Kalb confirms that he received the complaint call but says he didn't follow it up because he was acting as an interviewer for the event, not as a journalist.

O'Reilly's dramatics appear to approach Williamsesque territory, yet the reaction of each journalist in a moment of crisis reveals something fundamental: O'Reilly wants to be respected and feared, while Williams wants to be respected and loved.

Once called out by veterans and by the military publication Stars and Stripes, Williams apologized, abjectly, to the troops who kept him safe in Iraq. NBC's unprecedented six-month suspension of its star anchor may turn into a permanent departure. Williams had been paying tribute to an Army captain on his own broadcast as he unnecessarily puffed up his own adventures; it resulted in his resignation, last week, from the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation.

His failure to apologize to his viewers for misleading them stung — and damaged him with his network colleagues.

In our mind, viewers expect more of a top news anchor's journalism than that of a television commentator, even though O'Reilly probably means more to Fox News than Williams does to NBC.

We grade on a curve.

But we should care about what O'Reilly's response says about him — and about Fox News. The channel's chairman, Roger Ailes, prizes tribal loyalty over journalistic precision.

While an attack on O'Reilly's credibility could reflect poorly on Fox and Ailes, that's not as big a problem as it sounds. Fox's brand is built on the conceit that the rest of the major media mislead the public. But the public's trust in the media is so tenuous that journalists can ill afford to take it lightly. (Fox executives and O'Reilly did not reply to requests for comment for this column.)

On his own program, and again Sunday in an interview on Fox's media criticism show, O'Reilly denounced Mother Jones, CNN and CBS. O'Reilly even ran roughshod over his own colleague Howard Kurtz, asking and then answering his own questions. (Kurtz did gently object to O'Reilly's claim that CBS' Bob Schieffer had plagiarized O'Reilly for incorporating some of his footage in a story for the network about the protests in Argentina. That's how broadcast journalism often works. No matter.)

On Sunday, O'Reilly read aloud at length from a New York Timesarticle covering those June 1982 protests. He recited the line: "One policeman pulled a pistol, firing five shots."

On Monday a corrective arrived not from O'Reilly or Fox but from Rich Meislin, the former Times reporter who wrote that article.

He posted a note on his Facebook page registering an important omission: "O'Reilly left out that the shots were 'over the heads of fleeing demonstrators.' "

Meislin continued: "As far as I know, no demonstrators were shot or killed by police in Buenos Aires that night. What I saw on the streets that night was a demonstration — passionate, chaotic and memorable — but it would be hard to confuse it with being in a war zone."

To hear O'Reilly's version, there is never any confusion in the "No Spin Zone." Perhaps he mistakes such certitude for fact, but that doesn't mean that we have to.

[homersapien 11,393]

Whoops! Another one...

Bill O'Reilly's LA riots 'bombardment' stories disputed by former colleagues

Fox News host, whose stories of past reporting exploits are under renewed scrutiny, claimed ‘we were attacked by protesters’ when covering the 1992 riots

http://www.theguardi...ots-bombardment

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The hits keep on coming...

Fox News forced to backtrack again over Bill O'Reilly's reporting claims

Channel admits O’Reilly did not witness bombings in Northern Ireland or murders in El Salvador in wake of questions over TV host’s reporting experiences

Fox News has admitted, in answer to questions from the Washington Post, that host Bill O’Reilly did not witness any bombings in Northern Ireland or murders in El Salvador. The network said he saw only photographs of such atrocities...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/02/fox-news-bill-o-reilly-reports

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Obama has told more lies than Bill O'Reilly by far. Who is more important so far as telling Americans the truth, O'Reilly or Obama. Which one is seen more visibly by more Americans?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Obama has told more lies than Bill O'Reilly by far. Who is more important so far as telling Americans the truth, O'Reilly or Obama. Which one is seen more visibly by more Americans?

Good point. Obama never gets called out on this board.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This board is a few people. As far as I know he has never admitted he lied about anything to the American people he lied to.

[AUDub 11,158]

Obama has told more lies than Bill O'Reilly by far. Who is more important so far as telling Americans the truth, O'Reilly or Obama. Which one is seen more visibly by more Americans?

Good point. Obama never gets called out on this board.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Nice....ignoring the big picture.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Yes, in a thread pointing out that one journalist might be a tad hypocritical in pointing out the exaggerations of another, it's most important to realize that other people lie. Especially Obama. That way, we don't have to talk about the subject at hand.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

As another put it:

"Bill O'Reilly, gritty truthteller, was an eyewitness to the assassinations of JFK and Lincoln, as well as the crucifixion of Jesus.

Permit me to "clarify": he saw the Zapruder film, "The Conspirator" and "The Passion of the Christ." Difference between him and Steve Glass, Janet Cooke, Brian Williams, and Dan Rather? He still has a job."

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Is it wrong to put things in perspective....i.e., which is more important?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Just nit picking but O'Reilly and Williams aren't journalists. I can't anything on Fox News about this. Do you have link for their comments?