Bill O'Reilly Has His own Brian Williams Problem

[MachZer0]

Looks like Bill O'Reilly's brand is built on a bed of lies and half-truths.

The big question is will Fox News can him or embrace?

Somebody would first have to demonstrate that he's lied. So far that hasn't happened

 

[JustOneWay]

Somebody would first have to demonstrate that he's lied. So far that hasn't happened

It has been proven.

Time for Bill to fade away....

 

[MachZer0]

It has been proven.

Time for Bill to fade away....

O'Reilly presented actual proof as to the lies Corn told. Corn has thus far refused to face O'Reilly and present any evidence. What we're seeing in the media is the same mindset that resulted in "witches" being burned. Some things just never change

 

[JustOneWay]

O'Reilly presented actual proof as to the lies Corn told. Corn has thus far refused to face O'Reilly and present any evidence. What we're seeing in the media is the same mindset that resulted in "witches" being burned. Some things just never change

Just read Bill O'reilly's books and that is where it is proof he has been lying to make himself look better. He is a narcissist.

 

[JustOneWay]

Yes, Bill O'Reilly does have his own Brian Williams problem, he is lying to make himself seem more important than he actually is.

 

[Metal Minister]

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. O'Reilly covered the Falkland Islands war but never claimed to be there, and was present for a riot in Buenos Aires that was described as a war zone, and that is supposedly the same as Brian Williams making up a story out of whole cloth that he was shot down in a war zone? Is that about the gist of it? Noting that I am in no way an O'Reilly fan (I think he's among those in the media whom think their flatulence smells of strawberry fields) I don't think there's anything here. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Jessica01]

But he did claim to be there. Did you read the articles?

In April 2013, while discussing the Boston Marathon bombing, O'Reilly shared a heroic tale of his exploits in the Falklands war:

I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.
​

"in the Falklands". But he was 1200 miles away. He should be held to the same journalistic standards he is demanding of others.

 

[JustOneWay]

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. O'Reilly covered the Falkland Islands war but never claimed to be there, and was present for a riot in Buenos Aires that was described as a war zone, and that is supposedly the same as Brian Williams making up a story out of whole cloth that he was shot down in a war zone? Is that about the gist of it? Noting that I am in no way an O'Reilly fan (I think he's among those in the media whom think their flatulence smells of strawberry fields) I don't think there's anything here. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

No you don't have it straight. Buenos Aires was not considered a war zone.

 

[MachZer0]

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. O'Reilly covered the Falkland Islands war but never claimed to be there, and was present for a riot in Buenos Aires that was described as a war zone, and that is supposedly the same as Brian Williams making up a story out of whole cloth that he was shot down in a war zone? Is that about the gist of it? Noting that I am in no way an O'Reilly fan (I think he's among those in the media whom think their flatulence smells of strawberry fields) I don't think there's anything here. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

As I said, we now know why "witches" ended up being burned

 

[Metal Minister]

But he did claim to be there. Did you read the articles?

"in the Falklands". But he was 1200 miles away. He should be held to the same journalistic standards he is demanding of others.

Can you provide something other than Mother Jones, Salon, or Media Matters? Original sources would be best, since the above is akin to the sound of one hand clapping...

 

[DaisyDay]

Can you provide something other than Mother Jones, Salon, or Media Matters? Original sources would be best, since the above is akin to the sound of one hand clapping...

Mother Jones is an original source. They do investigative reporting - Corn is an award-winning investigative journalist. Media Matters provides links to original sources. I'm not so familiar with Salon.

Your personal dislike of the sources does not invalidate them - you'd have to show them to be false to do that.

 

[Metal Minister]

Mother Jones is an original source. They do investigative reporting - Corn is an award-winning investigative journalist. Media Matters provides links to original sources. I'm not so familiar with Salon.

Your personal dislike of the sources does not invalidate them - you'd have to show them to be false to do that.

Mother Jones isn't an original source, they "report" on original sources. Also, I can easily point to their deep biases. I would also like to know why Corn refuses to speak with O'Reilly. We seem to have conflicting reports, hence why I want to see the original sources.

 

[JustOneWay]

If Fox News didn't report it, then it can't be reputable.

 

[JustOneWay]

Mother Jones isn't an original source, they "report" on original sources. Also, I can easily point to their deep biases. I would also like to know why Corn refuses to speak with O'Reilly. We seem to have conflicting reports, hence why I want to see the original sources.

Here is the original report, and original sources

Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem | Mother Jones

 

[Metal Minister]

If Fox News didn't report it, then it can't be reputable.

I don't watch fox news. Nice attempt at a red herring.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Mother Jones isn't an original source, they "report" on original sources.

You're wrong. They do both.

 

[JustOneWay]

Mother Jones isn't an original source, they "report" on original sources.

proven inaccurate

Also, I can easily point to their deep biases.

So? A deep bias is not mean the story is not accurate

I would also like to know why Corn refuses to speak with O'Reilly.

Why should he? Perhaps he is afraid that Bill will get physical?

We seem to have conflicting reports, hence why I want to see the original sources.

The original source has been supplied in the OP. If there are conflicting reports then feel free to post them and add them to the discussion.

 

[Metal Minister]

proven inaccurate

So? A deep bias is not mean the story is not accurate

Why should he? Perhaps he is afraid that Bill will get physical?

The original source has been supplied in the OP. If there are conflicting reports then feel free to post them and add them to the discussion.

Several have already been provided. It would be redundant. As to your "get physical" comment, absolute hogwash. He isn't going to "get physical" on television, because then he would not only look guilty, but he would go to jail for assault.

 

[DaisyDay]

Mother Jones isn't an original source, they "report" on original sources.

I see what you're saying. What I mean is that Mother Jones is the original source of many pieces of investigative journalism which other sites quote and refer to.

Also, I can easily point to their deep biases.

Point to how these "biases" result in inaccurate reporting or false stories. They do actual fact checking there.

I would also like to know why Corn refuses to speak with O'Reilly.

Is that even true?

Mother Jones sent O'Reilly and Fox News a detailed list of questions at 8:30 am on Thursday. We asked for a response by 3:00 pm. We then called Dana Klinghoffer, a spokeswoman for the network, several times to make sure the questions were received and to determine if O'Reilly and Fox would respond. She never took the call or returned the message. Shortly before 3:00 pm, we sent an email containing the questions to Bill Shine, a top exec at Fox News, saying that if O'Reilly and Fox needed more time, we would try to accommodate them. He, too, never responded. At 5:26 p.m., we posted the article.

Immediately afterward, O'Reilly granted interviews to multiple reporters. He resorted to name-calling, saying I was a "liar," a "left-wing assassin,"and a "despicable guttersnipe." He said that I deserve "to be in the kill zone." (You can read one of my responses here.) It was clear that O'Reilly had no interest in answering the actual questions about his wartime reporting claims.

Source: Corn at MJ

We seem to have conflicting reports, hence why I want to see the original sources.

Did you try following the links (click on the underlined words) in the story? Watch the video? Actual original sources are cited in the actual articles - did you really read them?

Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem | Mother Jones

Bill O'Reilly Responds. We Annotate. | Mother Jones

The Proofiness of Bill O'Reilly | Mother Jones

 

[DaisyDay]

Several have already been provided. It would be redundant.

Could you give the post numbers of the ones you think are convincing at least?