Bill O'Reilly

[pomeroo]

Does this sound like someone painting himself as a reporter or a warrior?


What is the label O'Reilly is peddling for himself these days? "Culture ...something"? What is that word he uses?

Look, you don't like Bill O'Reilly. I'm not exactly the president of his fan club, so how far can we take this? A person who claims to have served in the military when, in fact, he didn't is a fraud, pure and simple. O'Reilly has not done that. People who dislike his politics and his manner are trying to argue that he lied, and he didn't. What more is there to say?

 

[pomeroo]

Really? Can you point me to a list or lists of documented factual errors Olbermann has made that compares to either those of Coulter or Hannity? Factual errors, not just opinions you happen to disagree with? Preferably ones he has never recanted or corrected?

You don't have a list of "factual" errors made by Hannity or Coulter. They express opinions you don't share. Their researchers are no less accurate than the Harvard students who write Al Franken's books (I would argue that Franken's assistants are far sloppier). For the past seven years, Paul Krugman has been announcing that a recession is imminent. Perhaps one day he'll be right. Is he making "factual errors"? Sure, it's a rhetorical question: of course he is, BUT, you don't care. In the wake of the 2004 election, Olbermann lent credence to the crackpot theories of an innumerate internet denizen named Kathy Dopp. This idiot tried to demonstrate that Bush won Florida (yes, a state he won by 380,000 votes) through massive vote fraud. The evidence refuting Dopp's nonsensical claims was available for $12.95 in the World Almanac, for forty bucks in the Almanac of American Politics, or for free by phoning Florida's Dept. of Elections. Olbermann, however, couldn't take the trouble to check. Coulter called him on his lack of professionalism.

Who is this legion of professional Bush-bashers who are more over-the-top than Michael "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies" Savage?

I guess you don't read the NY Times.

eta:

Well, someone approves of Michael Savage. He ties with Laura Schlessinger for third highest radio audience after Limbaugh and Hannity.

Why are we talking about Michael Savage? Do you want to spend time defending Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, or Ward Churchill? He's a nut who is on the right. Are you responsible for the deranged utterances of nuts on the left?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ok, thanks for the links everyone!

I particularly like mediamatters.com, as it is formatted in such a way as to provide actual references and transcripts of the mistakes that Bill made. I sent an email to my brother's fiance, and I am awaiting her reply.

I'm really shocked at just how bad this guy is. I knew he had some mistakes and some low-quality reporting, but it's absolutely absurd. How is he still on the air?

In looking for links myself, I came across foxnewsporn.com. It's rather humorous.

Bill-O hates Media Matters most of all... because they post clips and transcripts, and he can't hide from the ugly truth, that's he's a worthless, lying piece of garbage.

 

[pomeroo]

Well this is interesting. Makes one a bit curious if he even came near an actual battle.

http://www.thebiofile.com/news/archive/1155643527.php



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=5867



So compare all that puffery to this from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6417561/mad_dog/Within days of arriving?

Hahahahahahahaha, that is hilarious. This guy faced down Argentinian soldiers, was in combat, and covered 2 wars from this post and he was there only a couple days!

OMG I can't stop laughing.

I wonder what really happened in that second brush with death reporting on the LA riots?

Could someone remind me, did the Brits ever actually attack the mainland in the Falklands war?

And the reason The Rolling Stone has more credibility than Bill O'Reilly is...

Yes--we have a winner! The Rolling Stone is on the LEFT.

 

[pomeroo]

Bill-O hates Media Matters most of all... because they post clips and transcripts, and he can't hide from the ugly truth, that's he's a worthless, lying piece of garbage.

In other words, he doesn't share your prejudices and you don't share his.

 

[JoeEllison]

Peabody? Hello?

 

[pomeroo]

I see pomeroo has slithered away after seeing my discovery about BillO's couple days in Buenos Aires where he claims to have seen combat in the Falklands. Must have been remote viewing.



Perhaps someone should quote my post just in case pomy has me on reciprocal ignore.

Look, you understand that I regard you as an uninformed leftwing zealot who makes no pretense to objectivity. Typically, your only sources are far-left publications with questionable journalistic standards. I have no interest in Bill O'Reilly's experiences during the Falklands War. If you want to trust The Rolling Stone, fine. I know that your beliefs amount to little more than unexamined prejudices.

 

[pomeroo]

Peabody? Hello?

Is there somebody out there who understands the difference between a Polk and a Peabody? Could anyone possibly care?

The left has promoted a monstrous, Goebbels-like Big Lie for years--that Bush "lied" about Iraqi WMD. Not only do you refuse to denounce such vile falsehoods, you enthusiastically promote them. Please, no sanctimony from moral frauds.

 

[DavidJames]

Well done Ron, you have, on this page alone, learned and displayed an uncanny ability to mimic the techniques of 9/11 CTists.


Here you are attacking the source instead of the argument.

Look, you understand that I regard you as an uninformed leftwing zealot who makes no pretense to objectivity. Typically, your only sources are far-left publications with questionable journalistic standards. I have no interest in Bill O'Reilly's experiences during the Falklands War. If you want to trust The Rolling Stone, fine. I know that your beliefs amount to little more than unexamined prejudices.

Here you are trying to deflect a clear error with a wave of your hand.

Is there somebody out there who understands the difference between a Polk and a Peabody? Could anyone possibly care?

Here you are featuring the technique of changing the subject and throwing out random 9/11 CT stuff, opps, I mean random "left" stuff.

The left has promoted a monstrous, Goebbels-like Big Lie for years--that Bush "lied" about Iraqi WMD. Not only do you refuse to denounce such vile falsehoods, you enthusiastically promote them. Please, no sanctimony from moral frauds.

 

[JoeEllison]

Well done Ron, you have, on this page alone, learned and displayed an uncanny ability to mimic the techniques of 9/11 CTists.


Here you are attacking the source instead of the argument.

Here you are trying to deflect a clear error with a wave of your hand.

Here you are featuring the technique of changing the subject and throwing out random 9/11 CT stuff, opps, I mean random "left" stuff.

Changing the subject with a lie, which is worse, don't you think? Justifying a lie from Bill O'Reilly, because he's a fan of the stupidity and dishonesty of Fox "News"... and then tells a lie himself, while also dismissing the dishonesty of the White House.

He's either having fun with us, or he needs serious help.

 

[pomeroo]

Well done Ron, you have, on this page alone, learned and displayed an uncanny ability to mimic the techniques of 9/11 CTists.


Here you are attacking the source instead of the argument.

Here you are trying to deflect a clear error with a wave of your hand.

Here you are featuring the technique of changing the subject and throwing out random 9/11 CT stuff, opps, I mean random "left" stuff.

Yeah, yeah. One problem with your "analysis" is that there is no "argument" for me to attack. O'Reilly claims that his assignments have placed him in actual combat situations. Neither you nor I have the slightest idea if what he says is true. There was an insinuation that he suggested he had served in the military, although that insinuation is demonstrably false. A leftwing zealot cites a biased source and offers it as "proof." It is no more objective proof than O'Reilly's own words. I condemn the left's vile tactic of labeling anything that runs counter to its orthodoxies as "lies." And, no, the right is not equally guilty of this contemptible practice.

 

[articulett]

Pomeroo seems as fair and balanced as O'Liely.

If you were a conservative and you posted on this forum... wouldn't you be embarrassed to be be aligned with the likes of tokie and pomeroo? If people don't agree with you it's part of the evil leftists secular conspiracy... if they do everybody is a big meanie picking on little things in perfectly nice guys.

 

[Ladewig]

Even if we ignore the whole combat thing, we are still left with his claims that his called-for boycott had an adverse impact on the French economy and that the Paris Business Reviews has documentation of the impact on the French.

We don't have to look to biased sources to find evidence of O'Reilly lying, we have the transcripts of his program. The man does not have enough credibility to call himself a journalist.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo seems as fair and balanced as O'Liely.

If you were a conservative and you posted on this forum... wouldn't you be embarrassed to be be aligned with the likes of tokie and pomeroo? If people don't agree with you it's part of the evil leftists secular conspiracy... if they do everybody is a big meanie picking on little things in perfectly nice guys.

Pomeroo resents people who routinely accuse people they disagree with of lying. Naturally, you can't address the position I actually hold. That is, after all, my point.

 

[pomeroo]

Even if we ignore the whole combat thing, we are still left with his claims that his called-for boycott had an adverse impact on the French economy and that the Paris Business Reviews has documentation of the impact on the French.

We don't have to look to biased sources to find evidence of O'Reilly lying, we have the transcripts of his program. The man does not have enough credibility to call himself a journalist.

Here's more muddy water. Bill O'Reilly did call for a boycott on French goods. My best friend is an oenophile with an impressive collection of French wines. He and his coterie decided to stop dealing with French wine merchants. I don't know if he watches Bill O'Reilly. Do you get the idea?

 

[JoeEllison]

Pomeroo seems as fair and balanced as O'Liely.

If you were a conservative and you posted on this forum... wouldn't you be embarrassed to be be aligned with the likes of tokie and pomeroo? If people don't agree with you it's part of the evil leftists secular conspiracy... if they do everybody is a big meanie picking on little things in perfectly nice guys.

You'd think... but "conservatives"(who real conservatives are no doubt also embarrassed by) live in a delusional, insulated world where everyone who disagrees with them is an "evil leftist commie" who hates America and loves terrorists, and other stupid things like that.

Speaking of that other Bill O'Reilly stupidity: inviting terrorists to attack Americans he disagrees with.

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

 

[Snide]

Is there somebody out there who understands the difference between a Polk and a Peabody? Could anyone possibly care?

Is there a point to this apparent red herring?

 

[JoeEllison]

Is there a point to this apparent red herring?

To avoid admitting that Bill-O lied repeatedly, took credit for the success of others, and then refused to be a man and admit it when he was called out on it. And, when faced with it, his supporters also refuse to do the right thing and admit the truth.

 

[Snide]

To avoid admitting that Bill-O lied repeatedly, took credit for the success of others, and then refused to be a man and admit it when he was called out on it. And, when faced with it, his supporters also refuse to do the right thing and admit the truth.

Heh heh. That's about what I came up with. I guess I answered my own question by (correctly) calling it a red herring.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I don't even have to take pomy off ignore to see his reply was pure unadulterated denial. It's mind boggling that people take this route when cornered. The only person fooled has to be themselves. I suppose that's the actual point, saving face, even if it is by using such obvious denial of the facts in front of said face.

It's not like BillO wouldn't have had a huge campaign to rebut the Rolling Stone article. I don't suppose the incredible lengths BillO has gone to to explain the Levitt Town lie is any indication he might want to counter the facts on the Buenos Aires er ah Falklands lie story. Nah, wouldn't be within his character.

Of course such facts as how long you worked for CBS and how long you stayed in Buenos Aries couldn't be that difficult to corroborate. I imagine BillO would prefer not calling attention to the fact he never set foot in the Falklands in 82. It hasn't really been made an issue so far even with people noticing he stretched the combat thing. Must have been hard for people to imagine that not only was BillO making up the, "I've been in combat", but that he was actually making up all of it, not just implying his role as an observer was more than that.

So, just to make it clear the info on BillO about spending a very brief time in Buenos Aries, Argentina and never setting one foot on the Falklands Islands during the war there in 1982 is indeed a fact, here are a number of additional corroborating sources.

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)^WP

In 1982, he was promoted to the network as a CBS News correspondent and covered the wars in El Salvador and the Falkland Islands from his base in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He later left CBS over a dispute concerning the uncredited use in a report by Bob Schieffer of riot footage shot by O'Reilly's crew in Buenos Aires during the Falklands conflict. (A 1998 novel by O'Reilly, Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Television and Murder, depicts a television reporter who has a similar dispute over a Falklands War report. The character proceeds to exact his revenge on network staff in a series of graphically-described murders.)[10]

Source: # 10 The New Yorker

Here's the New Yorker article:
Fear Factor - Bill O’Reilly’s baroque period; by Nicholas Lemann March 27, 2006

O’Reilly’s account of what went wrong at CBS has him, as always, pissing off powerful people because he won’t play their phony games. The key moment seems to have come when, during the Falkland Islands War, O’Reilly and his crew got some exclusive footage of a riot in the streets of Buenos Aires and it wound up being incorporated into a report from the veteran correspondent Bob Schieffer, which failed to mention O’Reilly’s contribution. O’Reilly was furious, and after that, by his account, he was in career Siberia at CBS....

Then there is a biography on BillO.
NYT Sunday Book Review

...In “The Man Who Would Not Shut Up,” Marvin Kitman, a veteran television critic for Newsday, seeks to explain O’Reilly’s astonishing ascent. Kitman, who conducted numerous interviews with O’Reilly and his relatives, friends and co-workers, has performed Boswellian prodigies of research....

...At the workplace it was somehow never O’Reilly’s fault that his abrasive style got him fired again and again. O’Reilly’s greatest crisis, Kitman reports, came during the 1982 Falkland Islands War: he was supposed to appear on the CBS Evening News, which would be “validation for his father that he was a network foreign correspondent, that a major corporation was wise enough to have faith in him.” Instead, the CBS star Bob Schieffer cut him out of the story. (In his 1998 suspense novel, “Those Who Trespass,” O’Reilly concocted a character resembling Schieffer, who is brutally murdered.)

And regarding Kitman's objectivity:

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly^WP

Marvin Kitman and his O'Reilly biography

In January 2007, St. Martin's Press released a biography The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, written by longtime Newsday TV critic Marvin Kitman. O'Reilly initially cooperated with the author by giving him 29 interviews. According to Kitman, O'Reilly was going to help promote and publicize the book until, just prior to publication, they had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chapter covering Andrea Mackris' 2004 sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly.[47] After the book came out with the chapter included, Kitman asserts that O'Reilly, instead of promoting the book, attempted to bury it by "intimidating" and "terrorizing" Fox News reporters to keep them from giving Kitman interviews.[48]

In an interview with Olbermann, Kitman criticized O'Reilly as "kind of a hypocrite" by pointing out O'Reilly's belief that journalists should not attempt to flatter or indulge the people they cover. "Throughout all my interviews," Kitman said, "[O'Reilly] was telling me that nobody could ever tell him what question to ask, or what to say." However, when the subject was O'Reilly himself, Kitman said that "it turned out that he‘s not so much in favor of telling it like it is, but like it isn‘t".[48] Kitman also said he found it strange that O'Reilly sought to suppress the book when it cast him in a generally positive light. When speaking to Olbermann, Kitman said, "This is the only book that‘s ever said anything positive about Bill, except for the six he wrote about himself."[48] Several critics agree that the book's portrayal is fair.[49][50]

Sources:
# 47 Lovece, Frank. "O'Reilly bio may surprise fans and foes", Newsday.com, January 18, 2007. Retrieved on June 22, 2007. Accessed via Google cache
# 48 a b c http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17419934/
# 49 http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6396133.html
# 50 http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6387979.html

And there's this source:
NNDB

Bill O'Reilly worked as a school teacher, a local news reporter and eventually as a local anchorman, working his way up to CBS News in 1982. He quit almost immediately, when he thought Bob Schieffer had stolen a story he was working on.