First Brian Williams, Now Bill O'Reilly

[Lee]

Been to wars, but can't point out The Falklands on a map.

CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!!

I hate O'Reily, but why does that matter?

He wasnt driving, he doesnt necessarily know where it is.

 

[gourimoko]

If you are actually reading the thread objectivey this is clearly a liberal vs. conservative thread.

Is it?

I'm not entirely convinced Bill O'Reilly is lying regarding the Mother Jones report, and I'm pretty liberal.

 

[JSS2306]

I remember when I hated O'Reilly and everything he stood for.

Then Hannity came into the scene. This guy is the worst of the worst when it comes to fake persona's. He's literally the most detestable guy on television today and walks the party line as if his life depended on it. It does.

I can now appreciate O'Reilly and the fact that he gives his opinion and even though others may find it completely detestable... he sticks with it.

I think this is why he and Stewart are good friends to this day (they are).

Now a days, all we get is the hot topic and what is politically correct. I've seen O'Reilly completely lambaste his own on 100 occasions plus.

He doesn't sugarcoat shit and I appreciate that as an Obama voter myself.

 

[Notorious]

Is it?

I'm not entirely convinced Bill O'Reilly is lying regarding the Mother Jones report, and I'm pretty liberal.

Gour, you're a special breed. Clearly wasn't referring to you.

 

[Surge]

I hate O'Reily, but why does that matter?

He wasnt driving, he doesnt necessarily know where it is.

Lee, Google "Bill O Reilly can't explain that meme" and come back in here.

It's a joke my friend. And it's hilarious, trust me.

 

[The Oi]

If you are actually reading the thread objectivey this is clearly a liberal vs. conservative thread.

I've got this one as Huber versus nobody.

 

[Sebastian]

Bill is now tripling down on bullshit. CBS colleagues who were with him pretty much calling BS. O'Reilly likely due a raise from Fox:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/oreilly-engberg-combat_n_6731062.html

 

[macbdog]

I have a feeling if we dig into the past reporting of numerous war correspondents we would find many embellishments like this. It's part of the gig. They are the guys who all have 'big fish' stories. While O'Reilly is a blowhard and he deserves to catch flack for embellishing, I suggest to Enberg and the others to be careful about throwing stones here. I appreciate the job they do but doc many do it for the adulation it seems. The irony is that their witnesses are essentially each other- so I take even defenses of what they experienced with a grain of salt.

I personally wasn't all that upset with Brian Williams, just thought it was funny. Seeing a big ego get checked is amusing regardless of which side of the political isle they occupy. I'm not really concerned about it hurting journalistic integrity when the stories they involve are essentially personal anecdotes. But eh.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I personally wasn't all that upset with Brian Williams, just thought it was funny. Seeing a big ego get checked is amusing regardless of which side of the political isle they occupy. I'm not really concerned about it hurting journalistic integrity when the stories they involve are essentially personal anecdotes. But eh.

I think it is a bigger deal than that, because I think the whole concept of putting some level of personal trust in anything these people say is a mistake. If you really want to get at the truth, then you've got to let a story be reported, and then give some time for dissenting views to come out -- at least a few days. But the whole semi-deification of some of these anchors, with Cronkite being a perfect example, is flawed. It gives them way too much personal power to shape opinion. So any time one of the talking heads gets shot down, I'm fine with it.

And I'm not talking about every commentator, or every journalist. I'm talking about the whole concept of the "anchor" -- that one (or rarely, two) person in whom we're supposed to place some special repository of trust when they report facts simply because it is them saying it.

 

[Soda]

When media is supposed to be the watch-dog, who's checking them? The answer, clearly, must be real journalists and the people. The answer has been nobody for too long....

Media adjusted their duty to accumulating profit. The truth is not the purpose of all media anymore. Even if that's what they say.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

When media is supposed to be the watch-dog, who's checking them? The answer, clearly, must be real journalists and the people. The answer has been nobody for too long....

Media adjusted their duty to accumulating profit. The truth is not the purpose of all media anymore. Even if that's what they say.

In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't take a lot of digging to turn up dissenting opinions within the media itself. Then it's up to the individual to use common sense, and do additional research, to discern the truth on issues of important.

Just from personal experience, when you hear a story that sounds "too good" or "too bad" to be true about one side or the other, it usually isn't.

Unless it's Joe Biden. Then, you can be pretty sure that he just did something that everyone would agree is stupid.

 

[Sebastian]

This is now an exercise in seeing how far the man will go in denying he lied. Witnesses coming out of the woodwork debunking his story.

"Over the weekend, Engberg and two other former CBS employees who covered the event alongside O’Reilly spoke to CNN about their problems with his version of events. Manny Alvarez, a CBS cameraman at the time, said he does not believe O’Reilly’s account of his own cameraman being run down and bleeding from the ear.

“Nobody remembers this happening,” Alvarez told the network. “If somebody got hurt, we all would have known.”

Bill O'Reilly Defends Brian WilliamsPlay video

Jim Forrest, who was working as a CBS sound engineer, disputed O’Reilly’s claim that “many were killed.”

“There were certainly no dead people,” Forrest said. “Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews.”

Charles Krause, who reported from Buenos Aires at the same time as O’Reilly, called the Fox News host’s tales from the Argentine capital “absurd.”

“I don’t recall him doing any major story that anybody remembers, and he was there a very short time, then he was recalled, I don't know why,” Krause said in an interview with Media Matters for America. “He wasn’t a team player, and people thought he was grandstanding, basically.”

http://news.yahoo.com/more-cbs-staffers-challenge-bill-o-reilly-s-stories-of-violence-from-buenos-aires-150525452.html

 

[Huber.]

You still trying to make this a story?

 

[Sebastian]

You still trying to make this a story?

This isn't a story. It is a circus. I like circuses. It isn't about whether he is a liar or not, he is, it is more about watching the spectacle of an ego maniac behaving like a clown. No other journalist would have taken it this far regarding the invective and lashing out. A smart man would have apologized or at the very least said he was taken out of context.

It is akin to watching George Costanza continue to weave a web of lies long after everyone knows he isn't telling the truth.

And yes, I know you have no problem with Bill lying about combat and war zones.

Tonight's O'Reilly should be one for the ages.