Bill O'Reilly caught in another lie

[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.

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.

Gotcha', BedPan.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Let me dumb this down for you. Nobody was after him. He chose to tell that lie, repeatedly. It was documented and contradicted viable by sources in the war zone. You are defending the indefensible. This was far from a witch hunt, Mertie. He kneaded the rope, tied the noose, and hung himself with it.

 

[Mertex]

"""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?

Not the brightest bulbs, are they?

 

[Mertex]

Going to be interesting watching him trying to threaten his way out of this lie.

Maybe you'll get lucky this time. Maybe this won't be a complete lie like the Mother Jones story was.

Maybe.

Prove that MJ was found lying. Go ahead. We'll wait right here for you. If they are lying then there should be refutations and laws suits for libel all fucking over the place. Please make sure you provide links.

No shit for brains, it is MJ that has something to prove, they have failed to do that, therefor, it's a lie.

This lie isn't about Mother Jones and O'Reilly's elaboration on his stint in Argentina........it's about his lie about being in Florida and hearing a shot that even the maids inside the house didn't hear........try to stay on topic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Playtex, what KOS programs you to spew is pathetically desperate.

Guttersnipe Corn posted moronic lies in Mother Jones that backfired.

Now Soros has you termites in here yapping about other shit - you are desperate little trolls whom EVERYONE will mock.

Soros wanted to smear O'Reilly - he failed. KOS will program you to spew other hatred tomorrow, and like a gold fish you will purge this from your central nervous system. (We can't say you actually have a brain.)

You don't grasp that we are laughing at you, but then you are but a termite, a drone programmed by the hive.. You are not sentient.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Let me dumb this down for you. Nobody was after him. He chose to tell that lie, repeatedly. It was documented and contradicted viable by sources in the war zone. You are defending the indefensible. This was far from a witch hunt, Mertie. He kneaded the rope, tied the noose, and hung himself with it.

Your first post was already pretty dumb.....that's why it didn't make much sense.......what do you mean "nobody was after him"? Are you in a coma down there in that basement? Of course conservatives were coming after him......you all wanted him fired, but as soon as O'Reilly's lie hit the news....then you all started making excuses for him. Hypocrite.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Playtex, what KOS programs you to spew is pathetically desperate.

Guttersnipe Corn posted moronic lies in Mother Jones that backfired.

Now Soros has you termites in here yapping about other shit - you are desperate little trolls whom EVERYONE will mock.

Soros wanted to smear O'Reilly - he failed. KOS will program you to spew other hatred tomorrow, and like a gold fish you will purge this from your central nervous system. (We can't say you actually have a brain.)

You don't grasp that we are laughing at you, but then you are but a termite, a drone programmed by the hive.. You are not sentient.

You are so transparent, moron. O'Reilly is a blowhard and you are a gullible sheeple, defending him and making excuses for his lying ass.

Retards laugh all the time, so I'm not surprised that you are laughing whether at me or at anything else that amuses you.....you play with your own feces, while laughing, too.

 

[Mertex]

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.

The poor retard, plays with his own poop......what else can you expect?

 

[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?

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......

You start off with a lie. I never claimed anything like that. I wondered if you morons knew that or not. From that lie you come to all the wrong conclusions.

Your lame ass excuse still doesn't explain how you can say I didn't care about Williams because I will defend O'Reilly. The Williams incident was before the O'Reilly incident doofus.

 

[Mertex]

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

Yeah? That courage under fire? Not so much.

Not as great as O'Reilly.......right in the middle of combat in the Falklands.....in Buenos Aires? Bwahahaha!

 

[Mertex]

I love it when you liberals end up getting exposed as the lying ignorant losers we all know you are.

Idiot....the OP is about O'Reilly, a Republican/conservative....he's the liar being exposed for lying......geez, you really do need pictures, don't you?

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, nothing here, move on! Just the Socialist Agenda to get someone on the right lying, but as usual they fell!!!

"GTP"

 

[Mertex]

I win, you are done. Go away loser.

Oh, Congratulations.....what did you win? Another trophy for the most posts?.....awww, it's amazing what little it takes to get you all excited.

 

[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.

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

Do you understand what "defies description" means moron? No, I guess you don't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

^^^When morons can't defend themselves, they attack other news commentators and attempt to destroy their credibility. I present Exhibit A for your consideration.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

All news anchors are "paid propagandists."

I have absolutely no respect for any of them. They all work for "for profit" corporations which meet with the poltical elite at the CFR.

The only reason that Brian Williams lost his job is because he lost credibility. Bill will lose his too if he ever loses credibility. Unfortunately, he could tell even bigger whoppers, but his target audience is less curious, less inquisitive, and a bit more dull. Their personality traits tend toward the more emotional gut level "feelings" based thinking, therefor "loyalty" is what counts when choosing a news source or political position.

Hell, Rush Limbaugh rails against moral infirmity and decadence of character all the time. Yet the fact that he is/was a drug addict didn't cause him to lose his throne, did it? It's all a matter of target audience with these corporate propagandists.

If you don't believe it, why would one propagandist on the "right" (Bill O'Reilly) be defending another propagandist on the "left?" (Brian Williams) As if "we are only human," is a good enough reason to lie to the American public. Their JOB IS TO REPORT THE TRUTH, not create a new truth. If they do this with their own experiences, be sure they are twisting it to their corporate and government masters goals.

(Hint, they are used to doing this b/c they are all working for CFR members whose job it is to mentally condition the American serfs.)

 

[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.

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.

No, you have Faux News..........the most reliable news station.....according to you and the rest of the gullible conservatives........bwahahaha!

 

[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.

^^^When morons can't defend themselves, they attack other news commentators and attempt to destroy their credibility. I present Exhibit A for your consideration.

Quit being so hard on yourself. We all know you are a moron, but you don't have to keep admitting it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

The termites are so much fun when they are melting down!

KOS programmed them to spew hatred, but they sense that something is wrong. Drones like derideo and Playtex lack the ability of actual thought, but there are some senses that alert them when the instructions passed via pheromones are not yielding the intended results. Think of it like sprinkling baking soda in the path of ants, they become confused and hostile - as we see with Playtex and derideo here.

They will attempt to retreat to the nest to gain new programming from their Queen, George Soros.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, here is your Hillary for 2016?

"GTP"