Bill O'Reilly caught in another lie

[MisterBeale]

O'Lielly isn't a respected newsman, he's a paid propagandist. He'll keep his job.

O'Spinly does this faux outrage act whenever he is caught out. Remember the loofah story?

Yes, he is doing this to boost his ratings so Faux Noise won't fire him because it is all about the money, honesty and integrity be damned.

No, seething under the surface, Bill has some SERIOUS anger management issues.

 

[Mertex]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.

Except that I didn't care, moron.

Of course you don't, because you'll defend O'Reilly no matter what lie he says.....that's no surprise.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.

This whole thing is dead in the water.

You hope. Fox Noise and Roger Ailes are paying their way out of this one like they did when O'Reilly's producer intern demanded money after she played back the voice messages O'Reilly left on her phone back in 2004.

 

[PredFan]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.

This whole thing is dead in the water.

"""Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," """

Argentina is not in the Falklands, like Ireland or Scotland is in the U.K. Got it yet?

Your stupidity defies description.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.

This whole thing is dead in the water.

Yes it is. Guttersnipe Corn did his best Goebbels impression and fell flat. Much of it is that Mother Jones is less respected than O'Reilly. Anyone with a brain knows that both are partisan and biased. But MJ is bitter and vindictive, spewing bile in a shrill shriek. O'Reilly is upbeat and humorous.

It doesn't help that Soros sent his drones out to bleat utter stupidity like the moron OP of this thread - it simply confirms that the leftist termites are desperate and in a panic.

What can you say, Playtex has an IQ of DD, assclown derideo lacks even that.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.

Except that I didn't care, moron.

And now suddenly you do.

I didn't start this thread did I nit wit?

I didn't either. But that didn't stop you from posting, BedPan.

 

[Mertex]

The Daily Banter?

There's nothing to see here, folks.

Yeah, because you have something from Faux News or Briebart to counter with? Or, just blowing smoke, as usual?

Nope. That job belongs to you miss. This is a witchhunt and you want to dip the man in the river with a ladle to see if he doesn't drown or not.

No, I want to expose him....to show you gullible conservatives that you have liars on your side, but instead of admitting it and doling out appropriate consequences, like the gullible people that you are, you make excuses for him.

 

[Uncensored2008]

does this also mean o'reilly's war on xmas isn't real?

It means you lost again, Batshit...

 

[jillian]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

quiet.... he pretends he's a newsman.

 

[PredFan]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.

Except that I didn't care, moron.

Of course you don't, because you'll defend O'Reilly no matter what lie he says.....that's no surprise.

That doesn't even make sense dumbass. You are trying to say that I didnt care about Williams because I'll defend O'Reilly? are you drunk posting today?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.

This whole thing is dead in the water.

"""Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," """

Argentina is not in the Falklands, like Ireland or Scotland is in the U.K. Got it yet?

Your stupidity defies description.

Great response. I'm humbled by your vast intellect and grasp of facts.

 

[Mertex]

What can you say, Playtex has an IQ of DD, assclown derideo lacks even that.

When a moron can't defend himself, he attacks with insults. Why don't you try and defend liar O'Reilly with some facts? Because you can't, mental pigmy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
pure stupidity.

but thanks for the giggle.

Hey Jillian, your fellow leftist dims have a great JOOOOOOOOO hating thread going, want me to link it for you? You can help Shitting Bull and PaintMyBalls spew hatred at JOOOOOOZZZ - like good democrats do!

 

[PredFan]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.

This whole thing is dead in the water.

You hope. Fox Noise and Roger Ailes are paying their way out of this one like they did when O'Reilly's producer intern demanded money after she played back the voice messages O'Reilly left on her phone back in 2004.

It's funny. You are an idiot of the first order, but in your stupid rambling you accidentally hit on something true. Of course for the wrong reasons.

You are right. I DO hope it's dead in the water. I love it when you liberals end up getting exposed as the lying ignorant losers we all know you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When a moron can't defend himself, he attacks with insults. Why don't you try and defend liar O'Reilly with some facts? Because you can't, mental pigmy.

ROFL

Defend myself against what?

Soros is pathetically desperate and flailing wildly. You drones have not the gift of thought, so you can't grasp the extent of what this reveals about the hate sites that program you.

 

[Mertex]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.

Except that I didn't care, moron.

Of course you don't, because you'll defend O'Reilly no matter what lie he says.....that's no surprise.

That doesn't even make sense dumbass. You are trying to say that I didnt care about Williams because I'll defend O'Reilly? are you drunk posting today?

I'll dumb it down for you......you claimed that O'Reilly wasn't running for anything....so therefore we shouldn't be coming after him.

Well, I then told you that Williams wasn't running for anything either, but it didn't stop conservative witch-hunters from coming after him.

Now you claim you don't care.....but yet you immerse yourself right into the conversation defending O'Reilly. Geez, I would draw you a picture if that would help you, but maybe you just need to bone up......

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your post doesn't make sense, as usual. Are you claiming that Williams stole valor?

Yeah? That courage under fire? Not so much.

 

[PredFan]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.

Except that I didn't care, moron.

And now suddenly you do.

I didn't start this thread did I nit wit?

I didn't either. But that didn't stop you from posting, BedPan.

Hey doofus, I killed your point, now you are changing the goal posts.

I win, you are done. Go away loser.

 

[Mertex]

When a moron can't defend himself, he attacks with insults. Why don't you try and defend liar O'Reilly with some facts? Because you can't, mental pigmy.

ROFL

Defend myself against what?

Soros is pathetically desperate and flailing wildly. You drones have not the gift of thought, so you can't grasp the extent of what this reveals about the hate sites that program you.

Your position, moron.....obviously you are butt hurt because O'Reilly is being exposed as a liar.........so instead of hurling insults like a 12 year old, why don't you post some facts as to why he is not a liar.....but you can't, so go ahead and act like the 12 year old, and have another tantrum......and sling more poop....you're certainly full of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?

Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.

It wasn't desperation, it was stolen valor. It was a lie that gullible liberals like yourself believed.

Your post doesn't make sense, as usual. Are you claiming that Williams stole valor? O'Reilly did the same thing........if you think Williams stole valor, then O'Reilly did too.....and you gullible conservatives are defending him. And what is his new lie about? Bravery? Of just plain out trying to be what he is not?

Hey, I'm not the one going for O'Reilly's throat. This is entirely predictable that the left hand media would go after someone to ease the pain. At least I don't have David Corn to hinge on for my interpretation of reality.