Bill O'Reilly also lied about being in combat, but since he's only on Fox News...

[Gulo Blue]

some CBS staffers have come forward to refute O'Reilly's claims. I'm sure they'll be subject to the same hot air, personal attacks he aimed at Mother Jones, instead of providing anything of substance to support his claims.

I couldn't find a link to the article on Breitbart.com, so I'm not sure if we can trust it though...

I didn't see the context, but I did see a quote where at some point O'Reilly said he was in the Falklands, which he wasn't. I could forgive one slip of the tongue if he was more clear all the other times he mentioned it. I could see, if people in the area were getting shot by actual bullets while he dragged his cameraman, I could see him calling the protests a warzone and saying he's covered this stuff. But so far, it doesn't look like there's any evidence that it was that bad.

 

[Gulo Blue]

some CBS staffers have come forward to refute O'Reilly's claims. I'm sure they'll be subject to the same hot air, personal attacks he aimed at Mother Jones, instead of providing anything of substance to support his claims.

I couldn't find a link to the article on Breitbart.com, so I'm not sure if we can trust it though...

Oh wow. 7 people refuting.

 

[Michchamp]

Apparently O'Reilly considers himself a journalist, although has publicly shed the label and insisted he's just a commentator whenever it's convenient & he gets backed into a corner on some accusation or assertion he's made. Some comments I've read cited instances of him doing both over the years.

He apparently claimed he was a journalist, and the O'Reilly Factor was journalism when he attacked Brian Williams about his own lying. You could just see the Mother Jones guy watching that and thinking "How great would it be if O'Reilly had done this same thing... say! It's easy to find out!"

I don't think it matters to the dumb, racist, old white guys who watch his show... they consider him a journalist, and if they still tune in at this date, after all the crap he's delivered over the years it's safe to say there isn't really anything he could do to defeat their trust, short of peeing on a crucifix while burning an American flag live on the air.

So it's just fun to laugh at O'Reilly and the idiots who watch his show.

 

[KAWDUP]

Apparently O'Reilly considers himself a journalist, although has publicly shed the label and insisted he's just a commentator whenever it's convenient & he gets backed into a corner on some accusation or assertion he's made. Some comments I've read cited instances of him doing both over the years.

He apparently claimed he was a journalist, and the O'Reilly Factor was journalism when he attacked Brian Williams about his own lying. You could just see the Mother Jones guy watching that and thinking "How great would it be if O'Reilly had done this same thing... say! It's easy to find out!"

I don't think it matters to the dumb, racist, old white guys who watch his show... they consider him a journalist, and if they still tune in at this date, after all the crap he's delivered over the years it's safe to say there isn't really anything he could do to defeat their trust, short of peeing on a crucifix while burning an American flag live on the air.

So it's just fun to laugh at O'Reilly and the idiots who watch his show.

Of course if they knew you, they would take out their concealed weapon and blow you way. I guess it is good thing they have no idea who you are.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Apparently O'Reilly considers himself a journalist, although has publicly shed the label and insisted he's just a commentator whenever it's convenient & he gets backed into a corner on some accusation or assertion he's made. Some comments I've read cited instances of him doing both over the years.

He apparently claimed he was a journalist, and the O'Reilly Factor was journalism when he attacked Brian Williams about his own lying.

So it's just fun to laugh at O'Reilly and the idiots who watch his show.

It's a good bet that the folks at O'Reillys Network are going to view him as having a different type of obligation than The folks at NBC viewed Brian Williams as having.

 

[Spartanmack]

some CBS staffers have come forward to refute O'Reilly's claims. I'm sure they'll be subject to the same hot air, personal attacks he aimed at Mother Jones, instead of providing anything of substance to support his claims.

I couldn't find a link to the article on Breitbart.com, so I'm not sure if we can trust it though...

well, there's this from Mediaite, complete with CBS video to back it up. Mediaite is hardly a right wing or even conservative site (as evidenced by the fact that they site FOX as the source of the CBS video). shocked you didn't post it yourself...

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

oops. Looks like you let your blind hatred get the best of you again as you make a fool of yourself jumping the gun to pile on more Mother Jones b.s.

I don't watch his show but I do enjoy laughing at you making a fool of yourself on a regular basis. Don't worry though, the fact that you're so frequently wrong won't matter to the young, fanatical, bigoted, libtard idiots who read your mother jones posts...they consider you a sort of King of the Dipshits and if they're still listening to you now, what could possibly convince them how stupid you all are?

 

[byco42]

that guy's story was included in the retarded Mel Gibson vietnam war vehicle "we were soldiers once..."

Not sure why you are bagging on Col. Hal Moore. But maybe I am.

 

[Michchamp]

well, there's this from Mediaite, complete with CBS video to back it up. Mediaite is hardly a right wing or even conservative site (as evidenced by the fact that they site FOX as the source of the CBS video). shocked you didn't post it yourself...

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

oops. Looks like you let your blind hatred get the best of you again as you make a fool of yourself jumping the gun to pile on more Mother Jones b.s.

Actually, this doesn't disprove anything I wrote... it's now one man's word against 7 (or more) who were there. And some of O'Reilly's claims are obviously impossible to defend anyway, such as being on the Falklands during the war. 1,200 miles is a long way away.

Do you even read some of the stuff before you post it?

 

[Michchamp]

Not sure why you are bagging on Col. Hal Moore. But maybe I am.

It's kinda crappy of you to conflate my criticism of a dumb movie about the Vietnam War that adds a Hollywood-esque bayonet charge to the ending with the actual soldiers who fought there, but yeah, I must hate the troops... that's it.

 

[Thumb]

It's kinda crappy of you to conflate my criticism of a dumb movie about the Vietnam War that adds a Hollywood-esque bayonet charge to the ending with the actual soldiers who fought there, but yeah, I must hate the troops... that's it.

Well I'm guessing he's drawing a link between you calling the movie stupid which was based on the book We Were Soldiers Once… And Young, which was written as a memoir of Colonel Moore (Lt. Gen. Ret.) and reporter Joe Galloway.

Because we all know how closely any movie ever follows the book it's based on.

Either that or because Hal Moore was a serious Catholic. /shrug

 

[TheVictors]

Seeking to defend Bill O is shameful, no matter what news show you watch for bias.

The guy's a raving jackass ...so let NBC hold itself out to be superior and play the same 'liberal elitist' crap that you have for 20yrs.

But to basically BEG those who know you're full of shit by daring them ...? LMAO. I guess Brian Williams can no longer be trusted.

So why would anyone, based on this criteria, ever trust the Current Affair guy??

 

[tinselwolverine]

Because we all know how closely any movie ever follows the book it's based on.

American Sniper the movie deviated substantially from the book.

For starters, the guy dies.

You don't see that in a whole lot of autobiographies.

 

[Spartanmack]

Actually, this doesn't disprove anything I wrote... it's now one man's word against 7 (or more) who were there. And some of O'Reilly's claims are obviously impossible to defend anyway, such as being on the Falklands during the war. 1,200 miles is a long way away.

Do you even read some of the stuff before you post it?

I read both yours and the mediaite piece. And it doesn't disprove what you wrote, it disproves the things your pals at Mother Jones wrote - we all know you didn't write them because you're incapable of original thought. And it was already 1 man's word against the others (3 that we know of and 4 "anonymous"). Now it's 2 men's words, O'Reilly and the boss' and video evidence vs. 3 known "journalists" who probably hate O'Reilly because he's conservative, famous and rich and 4 "anonymous". Of course, since these 4 are supposedly telling you what you want to hear, there's no reason to doubt they exist so it's is 2 vs. 7 and if you ignore the video then you have nearly 78% consensus - that's almost enough to say science has proved it!

 

[Michchamp]

I read both yours and the mediaite piece. And it doesn't disprove what you wrote, it disproves the things your pals at Mother Jones wrote - we all know you didn't write them because you're incapable of original thought. And it was already 1 man's word against the others (3 that we know of and 4 "anonymous"). Now it's 2 men's words, O'Reilly and the boss' and video evidence vs. 3 known "journalists" who probably hate O'Reilly because he's conservative, famous and rich and 4 "anonymous". Of course, since these 4 are supposedly telling you what you want to hear, there's no reason to doubt they exist so it's is 2 vs. 7 and if you ignore the video then you have nearly 78% consensus - that's almost enough to say science has proved it!

such BS.

O'Reilly's former bureau chief - who wasn't on the ground in Buenos Aires - defends him. Actually he's only defending a portion of his claims, because Bill O previously claimed he was in the actual war zone, which is FALSE, he was at best, in an anti-government protest.

and you obviously didn't read the yahoo finance article. there are actually 4 people cited who dispute O'Reilly's account, Alvarez, Forrest, Engberg, and Lewis - and all four of them were there during the events described, and all 4 of them dispute O'Reilly's account. And other people went on the record (i.e. their names are in the article) discounting circumstantial events, such as providing the name of the cameraman O'Reilly allegedly saved and noting that he never heard of an injury, nor saw anything filed about it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

if you ignore the video

Did you see a war zone in that video?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think, for it to be a war zone, it should look worse than Ferguson.

 

[Spartanmack]

Seeking to defend Bill O is shameful, no matter what news show you watch for bias.

The guy's a raving jackass ...so let NBC hold itself out to be superior and play the same 'liberal elitist' crap that you have for 20yrs.

But to basically BEG those who know you're full of shit by daring them ...? LMAO. I guess Brian Williams can no longer be trusted.

So why would anyone, based on this criteria, ever trust the Current Affair guy??

I'm not a bill o'reilly fan. I don't watch his show and I thought Maury Povich was the host of A Current Affair. At least he hosted the one ACA episode I saw when I was in high school.

But, like the guy or not, if he's being attacked and possibly slandered he has every right to defend himself and in this case he seems to have some compelling evidence and reliable corroboration...

 

[Michchamp]

I think, for it to be a war zone, it should look worse than Ferguson.

it should be an actual war... heavy ordinance exploding, bullets flying, high risk of being killed... not just police beating the tar out of protestors, and reporters being more or less able to stay safe by ID'ing themselves as press.

LOL, the other guy who was there said it wasn't a war zone, but an expense account zone.

 

[Spartanmack]

Did you see a war zone in that video?

It's not afghanistan or Iraq so in that context "war zone" could be an exaggeration but hardly on the level of the Brian Williams whoppers. It's hard to say if the destruction is due to rioters simply destroying property or overly aggressive military response to the riots. Either way, the video clearly shows the situation in BA to be more violent than an "expense account zone" as if the whole thing was just a boondoggle for the press as O'Reilly's detractors would have you believe. But to Champ's point, I guess if the military dictator doesn't provide a body count then nobody died and no one was ever in any kind of danger.

 

[Spartanmack]

such BS.

O'Reilly's former bureau chief - who wasn't on the ground in Buenos Aires - defends him. Actually he's only defending a portion of his claims, because Bill O previously claimed he was in the actual war zone, which is FALSE, he was at best, in an anti-government protest.

and you obviously didn't read the yahoo finance article. there are actually 4 people cited who dispute O'Reilly's account, Alvarez, Forrest, Engberg, and Lewis - and all four of them were there during the events described, and all 4 of them dispute O'Reilly's account. And other people went on the record (i.e. their names are in the article) discounting circumstantial events, such as providing the name of the cameraman O'Reilly allegedly saved and noting that he never heard of an injury, nor saw anything filed about it.

Is it OBVIOUS that I didn't read it? Straight from the Yahoo Finance piece YOU posted:

"Engberg, Alvarez and Forrest spoke on the record about their recollections of the Argentina coverage. Four other people who were there for CBS spoke on condition of anonymity, some because they still work in the television industry and others because they don't want to be publicly criticized by O'Reilly."

Lewis didn't work for CBS, he was at NBC and has no idea what O'Reilly saw or didn't see.

Also, Browne was not O'Reilly's boss. He was the NBC bureau chief, O'Reilly worked for CBS. He has no skin the game here - he doesn't have to protect O'Reilly because there's no reputational fallout for him.