O'Reilly does a Brian Williams x10

[Starlight]

O'Reilly slammed Brian Williams for lying about his experiences in Iraq. But now O'Reilly has been caught out in much worse lies, spanning decades, making all sorts of wild claims about being present in various war-zones.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-falklands-war

O'Reilly has recounted dramatic stories about his own war reporting that don't withstand scrutiny—even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in. O'Reilly has repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina. He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could.

Williams was really in a war-zone and simply exaggerated what happened to him personally.

Whereas O'Reilly has just made stuff up from start to finish. He was never in the Falklands. He's claimed to be somewhere he wasn't, in a war he was never in, doing courageous things, that simply didn't happen.

[lilpixieofterror]

People in the media are liars... up next... is water wet?

[Cow Poke]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-falklands-war

We ONLY accept the New York Times as a source!!!!!!

[Cow Poke]

I never followed Brian Williams, so I don't know the answer to this....

Was he a NEWS REPORTER, as opposed to, say, a COMMENTATOR like O'Reilly?

[Teallaura]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/20/medi...nds/index.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ands-word.html

So at best it's semantics. And they had to go back over a decade to even find that. Yeah, gripping stuff - film at eleven...

[Teallaura]

I never followed Brian Williams, so I don't know the answer to this....

Was he a NEWS REPORTER, as opposed to, say, a COMMENTATOR like O'Reilly?

O'Reilly was a reporter at the times in question but a commentator when the comments in question were made.

[Starlight]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/20/medi...nds/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ands-word.html

Your links say that O'Reilly's only response to the allegations has been invective and name-calling.

I don't think he'll find that makes for an overly-convincing defense.

[Teallaura]

Your links say that O'Reilly's only response to the allegations has been invective and name-calling.

I don't think he'll find that makes for an overly-convincing defense.

You didn't read very far, huh?

I used CNN because they aren't exactly right wing - and even they can't come up with anything more than a semantics game over something decades old. Daily Mail did a stronger reporting job - and got pretty much the same (at least they included the videos).

FYI: The crap about Williams is also overblown - but he did in fact lie. He apologized and in my opinion, that should have ended it. O'Reilly didn't make up something whole cloth - neither source supports that - and it is at best misnomer so far. It's pathetic that you can't accept that Williams screwed up - had the guts to take responsibility for it - and move on. Nope, gotta find a distraction so let's dig through decades of reports and hope to find something.

[Darth Executor]

You didn't read very far, huh?

I used CNN because they aren't exactly right wing - and even they can't come up with anything more than a semantics game over something decades old. Daily Mail did a stronger reporting job - and got pretty much the same (at least they included the videos).

FYI: The crap about Williams is also overblown - but he did in fact lie. He apologized and in my opinion, that should have ended it. O'Reilly didn't make up something whole cloth - neither source supports that - and it is at best misnomer so far. It's pathetic that you can't accept that Williams screwed up - had the guts to take responsibility for it - and move on. Nope, gotta find a distraction so let's dig through decades of reports and hope to find something.

I don't think Gayblight spent a single second doing any digging himself, his sole contribution to this report was reading a Mother Jones article.

[Starlight]

a semantics game

Cute term for "lying".

FYI: The crap about Williams is also overblown - but he did in fact lie. He apologized and in my opinion, that should have ended it.

I happen to agree.

It's pathetic that you can't accept that Williams screwed up - had the guts to take responsibility for it - and move on.

See above where I agreed with you.

O'Reilly didn't make up something whole cloth

Actually, he did. That's kinda the whole issue here.

But apparently unlike Brian Williams he doesn't seem to have "the guts to take responsibility for it" as you put it.

[Cow Poke]

O'Reilly was a reporter at the times in question but a commentator when the comments in question were made.

AH - never knew he was a reporter. Thanks.

[Sam]

You didn't read very far, huh?

I used CNN because they aren't exactly right wing - and even they can't come up with anything more than a semantics game over something decades old. Daily Mail did a stronger reporting job - and got pretty much the same (at least they included the videos).

FYI: The crap about Williams is also overblown - but he did in fact lie. He apologized and in my opinion, that should have ended it. O'Reilly didn't make up something whole cloth - neither source supports that - and it is at best misnomer so far. It's pathetic that you can't accept that Williams screwed up - had the guts to take responsibility for it - and move on. Nope, gotta find a distraction so let's dig through decades of reports and hope to find something.

To be fair, the MJ article came out at least partially in response to O'Reilly using airtime in his show to berate Williams. So it's less of a "let's find a distraction" and more of a "And -you're- one to talk?" sort of deal.

But O'Reilly is O'Reilly and this is hardly the first incident of embellishment from him. As much as he professes it, no one really considers him an objective news source. Williams, however, is billed as an objective correspondent and so errors in fact or outright lies are rightfully treated more severely. Williams should have been fired. O'Reilly should simply lose whatever little respectability he hasn't already squandered.

—Sam

[Teallaura]

To be fair, the MJ article came out at least partially in response to O'Reilly using airtime in his show to berate Williams. So it's less of a "let's find a distraction" and more of a "And -you're- one to talk?" sort of deal.

But O'Reilly is O'Reilly and this is hardly the first incident of embellishment from him. As much as he professes it, no one really considers him an objective news source. Williams, however, is billed as an objective correspondent and so errors in fact or outright lies are rightfully treated more severely. Williams should have been fired. O'Reilly should simply lose whatever little respectability he hasn't already squandered.

—Sam

I dislike calling something you can't conclusively show as proven. I also disagree that errors of fact should be treated like outright lies - context matters here. Williams should not have been fired - and I think the length of the suspension was a bit extreme. Until we can hire robots that do journalism, we're stuck with the fallible and sinful human sort. We should act accordingly.

[Teallaura]

Cute term for "lying".

I happen to agree.


See above where I agreed with you.

Actually, he did. That's kinda the whole issue here.

But apparently unlike Brian Williams he doesn't seem to have "the guts to take responsibility for it" as you put it.

Translation: Drat, she caught on quick. Guess I'll act like I know what I'm talking about anyway.

[Teallaura]

I don't think Gayblight spent a single second doing any digging himself, his sole contribution to this report was reading a Mother Jones article.

Yeah, kinda got that.