Mike Honcho 5,439 Posted February 21, 2015 I didn't defend him. I commented on BORs defense, and the one quote by Corn we had at that point. I haven't been scouring the net looking for stuff on this like Honcho has, but when he brought more info I said he lied. Once again, how does this impact me? You called his accuser a "lying lefty hack", that's defending BOR. And FYI, reading the original article and following the links, isn't really "scouring the net" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 21, 2015 You called his accuser a "lying lefty hack", that's defending BOR. And FYI, reading the original article and following the links, isn't really "scouring the net" He is a lying lefty hack, with or without this whole BOR incident. HTH Let's look at my entire quote: Looks like BOR has the documentation that proves Corn is a lying lefty hack. At that point of the thread it certainly looked like BOR had exactly that. Corn is still a lying lefty hack. Has been for years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,902 Posted February 21, 2015 I didn't defend him. I commented on BORs defense, and the one quote by Corn we had at that point. I haven't been scouring the net looking for stuff on this like Honcho has, but when he brought more info I said he lied. Once again, how does this impact me? A hack Welcher defending a hack Liar - no surprise! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 192 Posted February 21, 2015 Holy Toledo! He cleary says he was in the Falklands, he doesn't say "I was in Argentina, DURING the Falklands" . And if he's equating protests to a war zone, well I'm sure some returning vets can explain the difference. I worked many protests, some violent, and I never equated that to being in a war zone. He's at worst a liar, at best dishonest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 568 Posted February 21, 2015 There was only one "war zone" in Argentina(actually off the coast of Argetina) and that was in the Falklands. Not only wasn't he there, he wasn't even there during the war, he was there after it was over. He lied, and it's been documented he's stated this multiple times. His document disproves his statement of being in a war zone. And Corn's documentation is the transcripts, books or video of Bill saying multiple times that he was in a war zone: Based on those quotes, there's definitely a lot less room for interpretation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,063 Posted February 21, 2015 O'Reilly must be sweating balls these days Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted February 21, 2015 Holy semantics. This debate sounds like a thread here. His story of what happened by all accounts is true, it's just that he didn't go into exact detail. In Argentina during the Fauklands war or just after during a protest ABOUT the war. It's semantics that doesn't mean much. His photographer was hurt, stuff was going down. So instead of saying "In the Fauklands during the war" it's more accurate to say "In Argentina during a violent protest in relation to the Fauklands war"....it's just stupid semantics. That's way different than outright creating a whole story. This is like a news reporter who was in a neighboring town to Feguroson and was covering a protest there about M. Brown. Then 10 years later he says, yeah I covered the Fegerson protests. I mean "technically" that's not true but Fock, really? Was he really supposed to get all technical and say "yeah I covered the Williamstown, MO protests, which is a neighboring town to Ferguson during the Ferguson protests. :yawn: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,063 Posted February 21, 2015 Holy semantics. This debate sounds like a thread here. His story of what happened by all accounts is true, it's just that he didn't go into exact detail. In Argentina during the Fauklands war or just after during a protest ABOUT the war. It's semantics that doesn't mean much. His photographer was hurt, stuff was going down. So instead of saying "In the Fauklands during the war" it's more accurate to say "In Argentina during a violent protest in relation to the Fauklands war"....it's just stupid semantics. That's way different than outright creating a whole story. No it's actually nearly the same thing. Taking a story that is true and falsely putting yourself in the middle of it--in supposed harm's way--for the purposes of self aggrandizement. The real difference is that O'Reilly is simply an entertainer whereas Williams was supposed to be a real newsman. The other, incidental, difference is that Williams was perceived to be a lefty whereas O'Reilly is a right wing hero. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 21, 2015 Holy semantics. This debate sounds like a thread here. His story of what happened by all accounts is true, it's just that he didn't go into exact detail. In Argentina during the Fauklands war or just after during a protest ABOUT the war. It's semantics that doesn't mean much. His photographer was hurt, stuff was going down. So instead of saying "In the Fauklands during the war" it's more accurate to say "In Argentina during a violent protest in relation to the Fauklands war"....it's just stupid semantics. That's way different than outright creating a whole story. And you think it was all just misworded on accident...rather than trying to make his story sound more exciting? Oof Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted February 21, 2015 And you think it was all just misworded on accident...rather than trying to make his story sound more exciting? Oof There's a huge difference in a little white lie embellishment play on words semantics versus outrightaking up a story. Surely you understand. Sheesh. Who cares? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 21, 2015 There's a huge difference in a little white lie embellishment play on words semantics versus outrightaking up a story. Surely you understand. Sheesh. Who cares? I agree its some weak stuff right now...but really, defending OReilly here...he embellished it to make himself look good. Its the same focking thing Williams did. The differences were already laid out. One was a journalist (though, at that point so was BOR) and BOR is not really that now. The other difference...everyone has pretty much said what Williams did was wrong. The hacks on this site (and now you, who I don't consider a hack) have done nothing more than defend BOR or just try to act like its some liberal media conspiracy against him. Pathetic. Its ok to admit a conservative guy like BOR was wrong and full of crap. They won't take away your conservative card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,439 Posted February 21, 2015 Holy semantics. This debate sounds like a thread here. His story of what happened by all accounts is true, it's just that he didn't go into exact detail. In Argentina during the Fauklands war or just after during a protest ABOUT the war. It's semantics that doesn't mean much. His photographer was hurt, stuff was going down. So instead of saying "In the Fauklands during the war" it's more accurate to say "In Argentina during a violent protest in relation to the Fauklands war"....it's just stupid semantics. That's way different than outright creating a whole story. This is like a news reporter who was in a neighboring town to Feguroson and was covering a protest there about M. Brown. Then 10 years later he says, yeah I covered the Fegerson protests. I mean "technically" that's not true but Fock, really? Was he really supposed to get all technical and say "yeah I covered the Williamstown, MO protests, which is a neighboring town to Ferguson during the Ferguson protests. :yawn: No, KSB it is not. He was never in a combat zone, he was 1200 miles away!!!. He wasn't even in the country during the conflict. O'REILLY: You know, sometimes you have to boil it down to just that. He checked the box. Will you go into combat? He checked the box. You got to -- you got to respect that. I don't care who it is. Even if it were one of the smear merchants, even if it were Michael Moore. If Michael Moore had checked the box -- yes, I will go into combat -- I would respect that. But, of course, Michael Moore did not check the box. Now, I, your humble correspondent, did check the box. Not in Vietnam, but in El Salvador, in Falklands War, and in Northern Ireland. I checked that box. And I respect myself for checking the box. O'REILLY: But again, look, I mean all of us who are reporters -- and I was a reporter for 24 years, even, you know -- and I was in El Salvador, and in the Falkland War in Argentina, and in Northern Ireland, and in the Middle East. And I did some pretty risky things. I was single and nobody cared, but you know -- a couple of girlfriends would have been - 'oh, no more free dinners from Bill.' But I did. I put myself, you know, in positions that perhaps I should not have, but I got good stories. And that's what people do. That's what journalists do. But I volunteered. Nobody sent me. Nobody forced me. I went it. And that's what these guys did. And these guys were in much more danger than I was ever in, although it got a little hairy in the Falklands, that's for sure. He was there during the protests, from BOR: O'Reilly noted that soldiers "were just gunning these people down, shooting them down in the streets" with "real bullets." And he told of rescuing his South American cameraman, who had been trampled by the crowd: "The camera went flying. I saved the tape because it was unbelievable tape. But I dragged him off the street because he was bleeding from the ear and had hit his head on the concrete…The sound man is trying to save the camera…And then the army comes running down and the guy points the M-16. And I'm going, 'Periodista, no dispare,' which means, 'Journalist, don't shoot.' And I said, 'Por favor.' Please don't shoot…Then the guy lowered his gun and went away." Dispatches on the protest filed by reporters from the New York Times, the Miami Herald, and UPI note that thousands did take to the street, setting fires, breaking store windows, and that riot police did battle with protesters who threw rocks and sticks. They say tear gas was deployed; police clubbed people with nightsticks and fired rubber bullets; reporters were assaulted by demonstrators and by police; and a photojournalist was wounded in the legs by gunfire. But these media accounts did not report, as O'Reilly claims, that there were fatalities. The New York Times noted, "Several demonstrators were reported to have been injured, along with at least two reporters." Saying people were killed(Nobody killed), soldiers(police) were firing on civilians with real bullets(rubber), he was in a combat zone(1200 miles away from combot. Not semantics, those are out and out lies....your response has the same logic BOR uses in his No Spin Zone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted February 21, 2015 Sarah Palin is backing bill. Apparently she saw him in the Falklands from her front porch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 21, 2015 that's it im not gonna vote for bill O'Reilly until they bring brians williams back Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,902 Posted February 21, 2015 Typical dirtbag lying republican hypocrite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 21, 2015 that's it im not gonna vote for bill O'Reilly until they bring brians williams back Anyone saying anything like this? Nope...thanks for proving you are a righty hack. Williams does it and you call him everything you can. Bill does it...you excuse it, defend it and blame it on the lefty hack media. Sad, but expected from you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted February 21, 2015 you've entered the no fact zone! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 21, 2015 Typical dirtbag lying republican hypocrite. He is a registered Independent. Don't let facts slow ya down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,902 Posted February 21, 2015 He is a registered Independent. Don't let facts slow ya down. Your hero Commando Bill is no more "independent" than you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted February 21, 2015 you know, with stories like this, I'm really starting to doubt Megyn Kelly's claim to have halo dropped into Panama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 21, 2015 Your hero Commando Bill is no more "independent" than you are. I don't give a rip about BOR, but it's always fun to point out when you don't have your facts straight........which can be done with pretty much all of your posts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,902 Posted February 21, 2015 I don't give a rip about BOR Which is why you've spent the entire thread spinning and defending him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BufordT 440 Posted February 21, 2015 He is a registered Independent. Only after he got called out for being a registered Republican in the State of New York for about 6 years did he register Independent. Not sure why he was so embarrassed about this though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 21, 2015 Which is why you've spent the entire thread spinning and defending him? Post 36, Slappy. You are without facts yet again. Like I said..............pretty much every post you make is fact-free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 21, 2015 probably an irish jew Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted February 21, 2015 probably an irish jew only finds his booze wholesale? And is constantly guilty about it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shorepatrol 1,871 Posted February 21, 2015 News - nobody should expect any better fixed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 22, 2015 No dog in this fight...i dont care....yet im going to post about it over and over and excuse the behavior and not really defend him. Yeah right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 22, 2015 I have HenryHill9323 on ignore. Yeah right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,439 Posted February 22, 2015 More Semantics from Bill: “It was an ‘expense account zone,’” writes Eric Jon Engberg, a retired CBS correspondent, in a Facebook post. “We -- meaning the American networks -- were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons.” In addition, Engberg calls into question O’Reilly’s claim that he "was out there pretty much by myself because the other CBS News correspondents were hiding in the hotel." “If he said such a thing it is an absolute lie,” Engberg writes. “Everyone was working in the street that night, the crews exhibiting their usual courage. O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading.” Engberg said O’Reilly ignored orders from CBS Bureau Chief Larry Doyle to keep camera lights off in order to avoid attracting attention and being injured: "According to Doyle, O'Reilly returned to the hotel in a rage over the fact that his cameraman wouldn't turn on the lights to photograph angry crowds. Doyle defended the cameraman and chewed out O'Reilly for violating his instructions on lights. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted February 22, 2015 As I said very early on in this thread, O'Reilly's gig isn't based on trust or credibility like Williams' was. So this shouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. Nor should he lose his job for it. His viewers aren't looking for honesty. There looking for his conservative viewpoint on things. That being said, I'd like to know if he expressed an opinion when the Williams news was coming out. And how hard he came down on him. Because if he acted shocked and angry, then I hope he gets lambasted by the rest of the media. (Except, of course, conservative news sources, because we all know that'll never happen). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmmmm...beer 822 Posted February 22, 2015 He didn't really. Check out his interview on Kummel. He was pretty conservative in his comments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted February 22, 2015 That indicates he is a smart man. He either knew this story was going to come out shortly or he actually has a conscience and didn't want to throw stones from his glass house. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,063 Posted February 22, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/02/21/bill-oreillys-argentina-story-challenged-by-ex-cbs-news-journalist/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,063 Posted February 22, 2015 That indicates he is a smart man. He either knew this story was going to come out shortly or he actually has a conscience and didn't want to throw stones from his glass house. I think he legitimately meant what he said about today's culture just trying to tear people down all the time. I'm sure he knew it could happen to him just as well as anyone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,439 Posted February 22, 2015 Did Fox News bloviater Bill O'Reilly commit Brian Williams type fabrications when he claimed he had been in a "combat situation" while working as a reporter for CBS News during the Falklands War in 1982? Did he pad his resume' as he was laying claim to personal knowledge about what happens in war? The issue has arisen because the "Mother Jones" magazine Washington bureau chief David Corn has written a story, largely based on recollections of CBS News senior staffers, comparing O'Reilly's statements about his war experience to the fabrications which sent NBC anchor Williams into a six-month suspension. I can provide some eyewitness information on this matter because I was one of the correspondents in Buenos Aires with O'Reilly and the rest of the rather large staff of CBS News people who were there "covering" the war. To begin with "covering" is an overstatement of what we were doing. Corn is correct in pointing out that the Falkland Islands, where the combat between Great Britain and Argentina took place, was a thousand miles away from Buenos Aires. We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts. We -- meaning the American networks -- were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an "expense account zone." O'Reilly, freshly hired by CBS, arrived in Buenos Aires a few days before the British expeditionary force defeated the Argentine occupiers. He was, as he is today, full of brio and confidence. I remember him asking me how I liked my assignment. When I said I was tired of living in a hotel and wanted to go home he said, "Call your agent." Back in those days calling your agent to complain about the company's decision-making would have been a career-ender, but he didn't seem to understand matters of the CBS internal secret wooglies, which included the rule that you did as you were told. I should have known he was headed for trouble, but I just thought he was a rookie who would learn. Yeah, right. Within a couple of days of his arrival the British Army and Marines had completed their land assault on the Falklands capital and forced the Argentines to surrender. The Argentine public, who had been living under a murderous, corrupt military government for years, were driven into the streets of their capital by rage over the loss of a war they had been repeatedly told their army was winning. As night fell after the surrender statement, several thousand people gathered in the streets around the presidential palace to protest. All the members of the CBS reporting staff and all the two-person camera crews we had in Buenos Aires were sent in to the street. I believe there were four or five crews. The reporters, as I remember, were O'Reilly, Chuck Gomez, Charles Krause, Bob Schieffer and myself. Somewhere it has been reported that O'Reilly has claimed he was the only CBS News reporter who had the courage to go into the street because the rest of us were hiding in our hotel. If he said such thing it is an absolute lie. Everyone was working in the street that night, the crews exhibiting their usual courage. O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading. The CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, Larry Doyle, an ex-Marine LRRP, was something of a legend among CBSers because of his personal courage and his knowledge about how to do your job without exposing yourself to undue danger. Early that night in Buenos Aires he assembled the camera crews in our hotel newsroom and instructed them to refrain from using the lights on their cameras while around crowds. Television lights attracted potentially violent people and also made the camera-person an easier target for demonstrators throwing rocks. We all knew that the Argentine public was angry at the U.S. for supporting Britain in the war, so American journalists might become a target for mob violence. So, O'Reilly has been correct in describing the situation in Buenos Aires as somewhat dicey for reporters. If he was nervous, I can see why. The riot around the presidential palace was actually short-lived. It consisted mostly of chanting, fist-shaking and throwing coins at the uniformed soldiers who were assembled outside the palace. I did not see any police attacks against demonstrators. According to Doyle, O'Reilly returned to the hotel in a rage over the fact that his cameraman wouldn't turn on the lights to photograph angry crowds. Doyle defended the cameraman and chewed out O'Reilly for violating his instructions on lights. When Doyle looked at the tape shot by O'Reilly's cameraman he saw that the video included stand-ups -- on camera description by the reporter -- which O'Reilly had ordered the cameraman to shoot -- with his light on. Doyle was further upset by this tape, which clearly showed that his orders on lights had been unilaterally violated by O'Reilly. The issue here was safety. CBS was doing a late night re-cap of the Falkland's story. As always the Buenos Aires bureau had no combat video footage to offer, so our part of the special would be the demonstrations, which had been well covered by three or four camera crews, including the one working with O'Reilly. All that footage was blended into the main story, narrated by Schieffer, who had been in Buenos Aires for weeks as the anchor on the scene. When Doyle informed O'Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O'Reilly, the reporter exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man," he shouted. Doyle was stunned. First O'Reilly had defiantly ordered a cameraman to disregard his orders on using lights, and now he was claiming the right to do a story the producers had decided should be done by the senior correspondent on the scene, Schieffer. This confrontation led the next day to O'Reilly being ordered out of Argentina by the CBS bosses. Doyle had told them O'Reilly was a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion. I remember looking on a monitor at the long stand-up O'Reilly ordered his crew to shoot, which was never used on the air. He shot this description in the middle of a clearly angry, chanting crowd. As a reporter I wondered why he would think he needed video of himself standing in the middle of the crowd when his own crew and others had taken plenty of good crowd pictures that didn't have O'Reilly standing in the middle of the frame blocking the action. You don't shoot a long stand-up when you have plenty of good pictures of the event you are covering. What O'Reilly was doing was in the realm of local news. I didn't know at the time that he had also violated the bureau chief's order on use of lights, but I wondered why would any correspondent would imperil his colleagues by turning on lights during a riot. O'Reilly has said he was in a situation in Argentina where "my photographer got run down and hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete and the army was chasing us." The only place where such an injury could have occurred was the relatively tame riot I have described above. Neither Doyle, who would have been immediately informed of injury to any CBS personnel, nor anyone else who was working the story remembers a cameraman being injured that night. No one who reported back to our hotel newsroom after the disturbance was injured; if a cameraman had been "bleeding from the ear" he would have immediately reported that to his superiors at the hotel. This part of O'Reilly's Argentina story is not credible without further confirmation, and O'Reilly should identify the cameraman by name so he can be questioned about the alleged injury. The gunfire reported by O'Reilly is equally suspicious. One of our camera crews reported that they believed the Argentine police or army had fired a few rubber bullets at the crowd. That was the only report we received of weapons being fired that night. The crowd had been confined to a relatively small area around the president's palace. It wasn't like there were protests going on all over the city. I did see soldiers armed with rifles on guard around the presidential palace. But they did not take aim at the crowd and I heard no gunfire. No one I talked to as the crowd was breaking up told me they heard gunfire. O'Reilly's claim that the army fired weapons into the crowd is not supported by anyone's recollection. Had that happened, I believe, the riot would have escalated into an uncontrollable attack on government buildings all over the capital. Nothing like that happened. Actually, the military chiefs, yielding to the public outcry over the war's outcome, were willing to give up their offices, which they did the next day. I am fairly certain that most professional journalists would refer to the story I have just related as "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty." O'Reilly, in defending himself yesterday against Corn's "Mother Jones" piece, said "We were in a combat situation in Buenos Aires." He is misrepresenting the situation he covered, and he is obviously doing so to burnish his credentials as a "war correspondent," which is not the work he was performing during the Falklands war. I don't think it's as big a lie as Brian Williams told because O'Reilly hasn't falsely claimed to be the target of an enemy attack, but he has displayed a willingness to twist the truth in a way that seeks to invent a battlefield that did not exist. And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced. He also ought to be ashamed of himself. By the way, "Old Man" Schieffer seemed to do okay as a TV journalist in the years (and there were plenty) after O'Reilly claimed to have been "big footed" by him. Maybe "Old Schieffer" called HIS agent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 22, 2015 what difference at this point does it make ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,935 Posted February 22, 2015 I'm still trying to figure out why I care if a talking head reading pre written material off a teleprompter lies about something decades ago. If you're relying on one newscaster or one channel because you "trust" them.....you're kidding yourself. They all have a slant or agenda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 22, 2015 what difference at this point does it make ? what difference did it make that Williams did it? Other than you think of him as a mouthpiece for the left? Really, neither made much of a difference...one lost his credibility as he should have. Can't be a news guy and embelish like that. THe other will fight and his supporters don't care if he lies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 22, 2015 I'm still trying to figure out why I care if a talking head reading pre written material off a teleprompter lies about something decades ago. If you're relying on one newscaster or one channel because you "trust" them.....you're kidding yourself. They all have a slant or agenda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
