Posted on 02/24/2015 12:18:21 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
... The basic charge - that O'Reilly exaggerated his record covering war - is true.
It all started with this article [link at URL] by David Corn and Daniel Schulman published in Mother Jones on Thursday, in which they detailed how on many occasions over the years, O'Reilly has characterized himself as a veteran of war reporting. Among the quotes they cited are times when O'Reilly said things like "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands," and "having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash," and "I was in a situation one time, in war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands..." That O'Reilly said these things is not in question. But, in fact, O'Reilly was never in the Falklands, and he never reported from any "combat situation."
O'Reilly's defense of his original false statements is itself built on one falsehood and a bunch of claims that are questionable at best.
O'Reilly insists that everything he has said is true, because when he was working for CBS News he reported on a violent protest in Buenos Aires around the time of the Falklands War, and that constitutes a "combat situation" in a "war zone." That part of the claim is absurd on its face; if covering a protest over a thousand miles away from where a war is being fought constitutes being in a "combat zone," then that would mean that any reporter who covered an anti-war protest in Washington during the Iraq War was doing combat reporting. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"I never said I was on the Falkland Islands as Corn purports. I said I covered the Falklands war which I did."
Is that statement true? Are any of O'Reilly's previous statements (covered ion the WaPo article) true?
That is what it comes down to.
But Corn is a liberal! That is true, but that doesn't mean that what O'Reilly has said is true, and all the Ad Homs from O'Reilly will not make any untrue from O'Reilly statements true.
What difference does it make now!?
LOL.
Hillary, is that you?
This Waldman guy is going to get savaged tonight....popcorn.
Yeah. That was a long time ago.
; )
I think the difference is that no one really expects O’Reilly, who is more a blow-hard entertainer than an actual newsman to step down over this. He’s not Chris Wallace or Brett Hume.
What say you?
About a 99% chance this will be the second and last thread from me on this... Just about time to move on.
There was no “O’Reilly SCANDAL!”
Rather, it was a “David Corn SCANDAL.”
I want to see Baxter and Corn-hole duke it out on PPV. Whore-aldo can referee.
The O’Reilly Scandal was that Loofah/Falafel thing.
I love the way this is playing out ... and it seems to keep being extended by one party or the other. BOR isn’t looking any better and liberal media isn’t looking any better. In fact, both probably look worse to anyone only half paying attention. I could care less about BOR and the Compost or Mother Jones. Let them self destruct. Fewer viewers for BOR and fewer readers of the Compost. That’s a win-win!
bfl
The central theme of The O’Reilly Factor is that the true America, represented by the elderly whites who make up his audience…The NYT “simplifies” buy injecting racism.
Might I suggest that they get their house in order prior to trying to fix O’Reilly?
Exactly.
CNN
What Bill O’Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War
2/20/2015
“2001; O’Reilly wrote in his book “The No Spin Zone: Confrontations with the Powerful and Famous in America”: “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands.”
2008: During an interview on his Fox News show, O’Reilly once again described the protest, but said it took place “In a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands.”
Reported on the ground... in active war zones... in the Falkland Islands?
In a war zone...in the Falklands?
Are those statements true?
Why not just say that they were inaccurate statements on his part or that they were misspeaks -— at the start of all of this with David Corn?
Why didn’t he do that?
Because O’Reilly has always been a big-headed egotistical jerk.
So what the WaPo article (top of thread) and what the CNN article (post #16) have him quoted as saying are true statements from O’Reilly?
Why didn’t he just say that he mispoke or that they were inaccurate statements on his part and be done with it? Or did O’Reilly just add fuel to the fire?
I’ve been saying for years that O’Reilly is a phony.
Like McCain, he has that cranky-Uncle-Harry persona that people interpret as conservatism. But like McCain, he’s a phony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.