Bill O’Reilly’s 1982 Falklands War stories called into question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomdstone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O’REILLY FACTOR

TALKING POINTS MEMO
2-20-15

nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/20/bill-oreillys-talking-points-memo-22015-airing-tonight-8pm-et

< My video of the combat … led the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather that evening.

and later on … I filed a report … that ran nationwide.

That’s what happened.

I never said I was on the Falkland Islands … as Corn purports … I said I covered the Falklands War … which I did.

Now … in what I consider to be a miracle … I found this CBS internal memo from 33 years ago … praising my coverage that day.

The cable was sent to the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires … by the news desk here in New York City:

"Doyle, O’Reilly didn’t have the time last night but would like to say many thanks for the riot piece last night. WCBS-TV and WCAU-TV both took the entire piece, instead of stripping it for pix. They called to say thanks for a fine piece.”

“Thanks again. Your piece made the late feed, a winner last night.”

Want more? … here it is:

Shortly after my crew and I … escaped grave danger on the streets of Buenos Aires … I wrote to CBS News boss Ed Joyce … praising the crew’s bravery.

I have the letter:

“The crews were great … the riot had been very bad, we were gassed, shot at, and I had the best vantage point in which to report the story.”

So we have rock solid proof … that David Corn … smeared me … and some websites that picked up his defamation … did as well.

Now … I had to spend hours last night … on the phone with various reporters … and crawling around my basement covered with dust to find documents from 33 years ago. Again, it was a miracle I found them.

all because an irresponsible … guttersnipe … a far left zealot … who has attacked Fox News many times before … spit this stuff out on the net.

and you know what? … nothing is gonning to happen to David Corn.

Mother Jones and the far left websites …couldn’t care less about the truth.

They are in business to injure. This is a political hit job.

At this point … TV coverage has been scant, but CNN tried to exploit the situation because a guy over there named Brian Stelter … is another far left zealot … masquerading as a journalist. CNN can do a lot better than this guy.

Real journalists … knew this story was B-S from the jump.

They knew Corn was trying to take the Brian Williams situation … and wrap it around my neck … for ideological reasons … because he has a history of attacking Fox News. >
 
Larry1700 said:
Well, for the record, I’m one O’Reilly watcher for whom it would make a difference.

Fox viewers aren’t lemmings, as your post indicates. There are things I have disagreed with. I can tell you I was very upset at the way he interviewed the priest that was part of an exorcism. He chose to use the time to say that the Catholic Church has lost some of its moral authority due to the sex scandal. While that is true, he missed a great opportunity to inform atheists who might watch his show that there are real demons, as the exorcism showed.

While I watch O’Reilly, I much prefer The Kelly File over The O’Reilly Factor, because Kelly’s interviewing style is better, and because O’Reilly tries too hard to stay in the “Independent” category. He ignores so much about all of the influences on Obama’s outlook on America and Christianity.

I strongly prefer Fox to other news outlets because their news coverage generally comes from a Judaeo-Christian, American, perspective, unlike other networks I have watched.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of what you say. As I mentioned before, O’Reilly has plenty of flaws. But he does do a good job at getting to the heart of issues that you won’t see exposed elsewhere. I also prefer Megyn Kelly to him though. She doesn’t bring her ego or her politics into interviews, she is never rude, and she never loses her cool.

All that said, I don’t think it’s possible to get the whole picture with any single network. Some people suggest that NPR or BBC is neutral, but no one is neutral. I watch some Fox for conservative points of view, and other networks (usually ABC/CBS) for liberal points of view.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
This story is actually several years old. The only reason it’s come to light now is Fox "news’s " hypocritical attack on Brian Williams, when they had their own liar in their own ranks.
Click to expand...
Oh, it’s all Fox News’s failt that Brian Williams has been lieing all of these years. :rolleyes:
 
Larry1700 said:
Well, for the record, I’m one O’Reilly watcher for whom it would make a difference.

Fox viewers aren’t lemmings, as your post indicates. There are things I have disagreed with. I can tell you I was very upset at the way he interviewed the priest that was part of an exorcism. He chose to use the time to say that the Catholic Church has lost some of its moral authority due to the sex scandal. While that is true, he missed a great opportunity to inform atheists who might watch his show that there are real demons, as the exorcism showed.

While I watch O’Reilly, I much prefer The Kelly File over The O’Reilly Factor, because Kelly’s interviewing style is better, and because O’Reilly tries too hard to stay in the “Independent” category. He ignores so much about all of the influences on Obama’s outlook on America and Christianity.

I strongly prefer Fox to other news outlets because their news coverage generally comes from a Judaeo-Christian, American, perspective, unlike other networks I have watched.
Click to expand...
👍 👍 👍
 
Havard said:
As I mentioned before, O’Reilly has plenty of flaws. But he does do a good job at getting to the heart of issues that you won’t see exposed elsewhere.
Click to expand...
O’Reilly had two pacifists on his program last week and asked them about how they would respond to ISIS. As each one tried to explain calmly and give a coherent answer, O’Reilly was furious and continually and loudly interrupted them, making faces, mocking their answers and cutting them off, refusing to let them respond in a complete sentence. This was not a good job at getting to the heart of what pacifism means. It was a hatchet job.
 
Tomdstone said:
O’Reilly had two pacifists on his program last week and asked them about how they would respond to ISIS. As each one tried to explain calmly and give a coherent answer, O’Reilly was furious and continually and loudly interrupted them, making faces, mocking their answers and cutting them off, refusing to let them respond in a complete sentence. This was not a good job at getting to the heart of what pacifism means. It was a hatchet job.
Click to expand...
Here’s the segment:

youtube.com/watch?v=HnXKBt2WgBM

O’Reilly let Katie Gould go on for a bit but then interrupted her a couple of times to get her to name specific things she would do. Wallis never even attempted to answer the question put to him, he just kept saying what he wouldn’t do.
 
Havard said:
Here’s the segment:

youtube.com/watch?v=HnXKBt2WgBM

O’Reilly let Katie Gould go on for a bit but then interrupted her a couple of times to get her to name specific things she would do. Wallis never even attempted to answer the question put to him, he just kept saying what he wouldn’t do.
Click to expand...
Bill did a pretty good job of cutting through the empty words and tying it all back to what shouldn’t happened years ago.
 
Havard said:
Here’s the segment:

youtube.com/watch?v=HnXKBt2WgBM

O’Reilly let Katie Gould go on for a bit but then interrupted her a couple of times to get her to name specific things she would do. Wallis never even attempted to answer the question put to him, he just kept saying what he wouldn’t do.
Click to expand...
He did not give him a chance to finish. He was cut off.
 
He was given a chance to finish answering the question, but he chose not to answer the question.

He was not however given a chance to obfuscate and avoid answering the question by changing the topic to something else.
 
AyJSimon said:
Whether this is an agenda-driven story or not, I see little point in bringing it up. O’Reilly’s fans don’t care if he’s a liar. He could go on TV tonight and admit he made up every detail of his war correspondent experience, and his fans would laud for being so honest about his decades long deception.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem.
And highly insulting.
 
Tomdstone said:
O’Reilly had two pacifists on his program last week and asked them about how they would respond to ISIS. As each one tried to explain calmly and give a coherent answer, O’Reilly was furious and continually and loudly interrupted them, making faces, mocking their answers and cutting them off, refusing to let them respond in a complete sentence. This was not a good job at getting to the heart of what pacifism means. It was a hatchet job.
Click to expand...
Somewhat like Chris Matthews then on MSNBC? Matthews continuously cuts off many of his guests, who are mostly, though not all, liberal, if they disagree even one iota with him, and sometimes even when they don’t disagree, because he appears to enjoy most hearing himself talk. But he can be entertaining at times.
 
meltzerboy said:
Somewhat like Chris Matthews then on MSNBC? Matthews continuously cuts off many of his guests, who are mostly, though not all, liberal, if they disagree even one iota with him, and sometimes even when they don’t disagree, because he appears to enjoy most hearing himself talk. But he can be entertaining at times.
Click to expand...
I don’t like this technique of cutting people off and not giving them a chance to explain their reasoning. I find it very rude whether it is done by O’Reilly or by Matthews. Getting back to O’Reilly, I really wanted to hear what these pacifists had to say but they were not given a chance to explain their position. It is true that they got a few words in, but it was obvious that they had a lot more to offer. If I remember correctly, after cutting these two off, O’Reilly himself is heard to admit that he is obnoxious. I did agree with him on that.
 
I like what O’Reilly did. I want to hear the guests answer his question, and not go off on their tangents, using the program as a sounding board for their cause.
I would only wish that journalists would use the same technique on politicians too, who never answer the questions, but invariably use the question as a segway to talk about their own platform.

The sweet young gal actually tried to answer the question, and she was slaughtered. That is not so much Bill’s problem though, but the problem with her own weak position.
 
Havard said:
I agree with a lot of what you say. As I mentioned before, O’Reilly has plenty of flaws. But he does do a good job at getting to the heart of issues that you won’t see exposed elsewhere. I also prefer Megyn Kelly to him though. She doesn’t bring her ego or her politics into interviews, she is never rude, and she never loses her cool.

All that said, I don’t think it’s possible to get the whole picture with any single network. Some people suggest that NPR or BBC is neutral, but no one is neutral. I watch some Fox for conservative points of view, and other networks (usually ABC/CBS) for liberal points of view.
Click to expand...
Wow, NPR and BBC are neutral. Now that’s funny! 😃
 
Tomdstone said:
news.yahoo.com/bill-o-reilly-s-1982-falklands-war-coverage-called-into-question-143346003.html
Did O’Reilly tell the truth about his coverage of the Falklands war?
Here are some quotes which are being questioned:
“I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down…"
“You know that I am not easily shocked. I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.”
“Hey, Colonel, did you ever have a hostile point an M-16 at your head from 10 yards away? That happened to me while I was covering the Falklands war.”
But O’Reilly says that “Everything I’ve said about my career is 100 percent accurate,” …“I never said I was on the Falkland Islands.

latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-oreilly-falklands-20150219-story.html
theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/20/fox-news-bill-oreilly-accused-of-exaggerating-war-zone-exploits
mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/20/veteran-war-reporters-oreillys-falklands-fibs-v/202590
Click to expand...
Not surprising since O’Reilly often seems like he’s shooting from hip. Here’s a testimonial from someone who was there with O’Reilly:

rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/ex-cbs-reporter-shreds-bill-oreilly-on-cnn-hes-not-a-real-reporter-and-he-was-not-in-a-combat-zone/
 
Bill O’Reilly in the Falklands is not a scandal.

I don’t know what more could be said really.
 
Larry1700 said:
Wow, NPR and BBC are neutral. Now that’s funny! 😃
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

That is funny.

I also think this story could be a non-starter and just an attempt to go after Big Bill because he dominates the ratings and may be an attempt to cover for Brian Williams.

O’Reilly has the experience to be Dean of The Columbia School of Journalism. 👍
 
Mulligan2 said:
Not surprising since O’Reilly often seems like he’s shooting from hip. Here’s a testimonial from someone who was there with O’Reilly:

rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/ex-cbs-reporter-shreds-bill-oreilly-on-cnn-hes-not-a-real-reporter-and-he-was-not-in-a-combat-zone/
Click to expand...
“It wasn’t a combat situation by any sense of the wording that I know,” Engberg said. “There were no people killed. He said that he saw troops fire into the crowd. I never saw that, and I don’t know anybody who did. And I was there on the scene.”

“What’s interesting is, not only did I not hear any shots, I didn’t see any ambulances. I didn’t see any tanks. I didn’t see any armored cars, all of the things that you would have expected to see had people been shot.”
rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/ex-cbs-reporter-shreds-bill-oreilly-on-cnn-hes-not-a-real-reporter-and-he-was-not-in-a-combat-zone/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top