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.
Crossbones said:
Of course, he said “But enough is enough … The threats stop now. I will not give in to extortion.” and then, according to him, he did give into extortion. Or maybe he did the things she accused him of. But there was a lot of bravado that he was going to fight until he didn’t fight. Maybe it had something to do with the tapes…
Click to expand...
:yawn:

I’ve learned enough over the years to read neither innocence nor guilt into settlements. Yet you insinuate guilt. :tsktsk:

Guilty until proven innocent?
 
estesbob said:
The story has pretty much disappeared after O’Reilly produced evidence backing up his story and his primary accuser refused to confront the accused…
Click to expand...
Not really. There are more accusations against Mr. O’Reilly.
See: More former CBS staffers challenge Bill O’Reilly’s Falklands war stories
news.yahoo.com/more-cbs-staffers-challenge-bill-o-reilly-s-stories-of-violence-from-buenos-aires-150525452.html

QUOTED from the above Link
In an interview with Hamptons TV in 2009, O’Reilly said he told the crew, “‘Why are you guys [hiding]? You got to get out and cover the story,’ which I did.”
“It is an absolute lie,” Engberg wrote. “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.”
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.”
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.”
 
Suudy said:
:yawn:

I’ve learned enough over the years to read neither innocence nor guilt into settlements. Yet you insinuate guilt. :tsktsk:

Guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...
No, I think settling it isn’t by itself as indication of guilt. Saying, nay, screaming that you are going to not give into extortion to your audience and then settling after she says she has tapes, well, that seems like an act of a guilty man to me…
 
O’Reilly had to spend most of tonight on his show defending himself. He showed film from the riot he was in, etc. He exposed the Corn guy as having a score to settle with FOX for firing him years ago, etc.

It seems once you are an important person everyone wants to sue you or discredit you. O’Reilly has had to put up with it for years, it’s nothing new to him. But he said tonight if you are attacked you need to stand up for yourself and not ignore it. He hopes he has done that and now it will stop. I hope so too.
 
It looks like O’Reilly has not only vindicated himself, but just made his position as a journalist stronger in the process. There will be those who will never trust O’Reilly again because of this and will have doubts about him. However, the new evidence provided will help him to be seen as trustworthy.

The left lost this round. I think you may see more independents coming to Fox for their information as a result (If there are any independents remaining in the world. 🤷).
 
Tomdstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find it very rude when people won’t answer a direct question, and instead obfuscate and redirect to answer a question they want to answer. I appreciate when reporters or hosts will cut someone off who is refusing to answer a fair question.

The question of what you WOULD do is a fair one. They wanted to dodge the question and talk about what they WOULDN’T do. They wanted to play Monday morning QB, but didn’t want to actually lay out a plan of action that could be analyzed.
 
zz912 said:
I find it very rude when people won’t answer a direct question, and instead obfuscate and redirect to answer a question they want to answer. I appreciate when reporters or hosts will cut someone off who is refusing to answer a fair question.

The question of what you WOULD do is a fair one. They wanted to dodge the question and talk about what they WOULDN’T do. They wanted to play Monday morning QB, but didn’t want to actually lay out a plan of action that could be analyzed.
Click to expand...
Stop with the Josh Earnest bashing already!
 
I don’t know, seems to be going around, here’s another.

foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/24/va-secretary-robert-mcdonald-reportedly-admits-lying-about-special-forces/
McDonald graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975 and completed Army Ranger training before being assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division until his retirement in 1980. According to the Huffington Post, while McDonald was formally recognized as a graduate of Ranger School, he never actually served in a Ranger battalion or other special operations unit.
Click to expand...
“I have no excuse,” the website quoted McDonald as saying in its report. “I was not in special forces.”
Click to expand...
In a statement released Monday by the VA, McDonald said: “While I was in Los Angeles, engaging a homeless individual to determine his veteran status, I asked the man where he had served in the military. He responded that he had served in special forces. I incorrectly stated that I had been in special forces. That was inaccurate and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my misstatement.”
Click to expand...
 
zz912 said:
I find it very rude when people won’t answer a direct question, and instead obfuscate and redirect to answer a question they want to answer. I appreciate when reporters or hosts will cut someone off who is refusing to answer a fair question.

The question of what you WOULD do is a fair one. They wanted to dodge the question and talk about what they WOULDN’T do. They wanted to play Monday morning QB, but didn’t want to actually lay out a plan of action that could be analyzed.
Click to expand...
Certainly.

It is very easy to find fault with what others are doing, or what has been done in the past, but people want to know what the alternatives that you are proposing would look like.
 
estesbob said:
The story has pretty much disappeared after O’Reilly produced evidence backing up his story and his primary accuser refused to confront the accused.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn’t disappeared yet. There are questions being raised about a threat that O’Reilly has made to a NY Times Reporter:
. ‘I am coming after you with everything I have,’ Mr. O’Reilly said. ‘You can take it as a threat.’”
politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/bill-oreilly-threatens-ny-times-reporter-202990.html
 
Haha! Brian Williams gets caught lying then O’ Reilly’s stories are called into question. The left has to pull someone down along with them in order to “even out” the blame.

I also find it amusing that when Fox News comes under criticism it’s all open season on its butt. Then when non-Fox News networks get under criticism it’s “Well, it ain’t right vs left thing,” to “They’re all unreliable!”

Just admit it: This board has unnatural contempt for Fox, more so than it does with any other news network. I also remember one poster saying there was no left bias in higher education, and after a few explanations he still didn’t believe it.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
And what are his credentials to be called a journalist?
Click to expand...
It takes three seconds to Google his name and find out that he has real credentials. But of course he has real credentials. He not only paid his dues at every market size level, he won two local Emmy’s for investigative reporting before moving up to CBS’ national network news.
 
This must help his ratings and I never watched him on a regular basis, from time to time maybe. I’m watching it now.

Also, if O’Reilly ever interrupts people, it’s air time and he probably does that to everyone.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
It looks like O’Reilly has not only vindicated himself, but just made his position as a journalist stronger in the process. There will be those who will never trust O’Reilly again because of this and will have doubts about him. However, the new evidence provided will help him to be seen as trustworthy.

The left lost this round. I think you may see more independents coming to Fox for their information as a result (If there are any independents remaining in the world. 🤷).
Click to expand...
He hasn’t vindicated himself at all. A riot is hardly a war zone and none of the footage proved what he claimed or discredited the accounts of the other people who were there and disagree with his interpretation or fabrication of events. The only thing this entire business with Williams and O’Reilly goes to show is that you can’t make journalists part of the story they’re supposed to be reporting on and expect an accurate report that isn’t, whether intentional or not, colored by their biases or personal interpretation of events.

As for O’Reilly’s story, he mentioned that other local media outlets reported certain things that he claims support his position. He could have simply read those things after the fact and interpreted his own experience in the context of those media reports and he may genuinely believe that he witnessed what those reports described or he could have made the whole thing up. Either way, the fact that everyone else who was there has come out against his story is evidence enough that what he claims to have experienced isn’t true.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
He hasn’t vindicated himself at all. A riot is hardly a war zone and none of the footage proved what he claimed or discredited the accounts of the other people who were there and disagree with his interpretation or fabrication of events. The only thing this entire business with Williams and O’Reilly goes to show is that you can’t make journalists part of the story they’re supposed to be reporting on and expect an accurate report that isn’t, whether intentional or not, colored by their biases or personal interpretation of events.

As for O’Reilly’s story, he mentioned that other local media outlets reported certain things that he claims support his position. He could have simply read those things after the fact and interpreted his own experience in the context of those media reports and he may genuinely believe that he witnessed what those reports described or he could have made the whole thing up. Either way, the fact that everyone else who was there has come out against his story is evidence enough that what he claims to have experienced isn’t true.
Click to expand...
Why are you moving the goalposts? If Bill O says it’s a war zone, who are you to question?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
He hasn’t vindicated himself at all. A riot is hardly a war zone and none of the footage proved what he claimed or discredited the accounts of the other people who were there and disagree with his interpretation or fabrication of events. The only thing this entire business with Williams and O’Reilly goes to show is that you can’t make journalists part of the story they’re supposed to be reporting on and expect an accurate report that isn’t, whether intentional or not, colored by their biases or personal interpretation of events.

As for O’Reilly’s story, he mentioned that other local media outlets reported certain things that he claims support his position. He could have simply read those things after the fact and interpreted his own experience in the context of those media reports and he may genuinely believe that he witnessed what those reports described or he could have made the whole thing up. Either way, the fact that everyone else who was there has come out against his story is evidence enough that what he claims to have experienced isn’t true.
Click to expand...
As I said, there will still be those who will find him not to be trustworthy.

The difference is that with O’Reilley’s story, there is at the very least debate as to his story whether it is legitimate or not. With Williams, there is no debate. Williams was caught red handed and fessed up.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
What goalposts?
Click to expand...
Goalposts. You know, we’re just dealing with semantics here. Riot, war zone, what’s the difference? Bill O has faced down danger to bring you the news while you sit in your comfy couch.
O’Reilly has a penchant for hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole is spin and this is the no-spin zone.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
As I said, there will still be those who will find him not to be trustworthy.
Click to expand...
O’Reilly isn’t really a journalist anymore and hasn’t been for a long time. He’s just a political commentator/pundit with his own show. Its not a matter of trusting that the “facts” he presents are really facts, but whether people put too much faith in his opinions and side with him in a debate.
Stylteralmaldo said:
The difference is that with O’Reilley’s story, there is at the very least debate as to his story whether it is legitimate or not. With Williams, there is no debate. Williams was caught red handed and fessed up.
Click to expand...
Like O’Reilly, the veracity of Williams’ claims required investigation. O’Reilly may eventually find the integrity to admit he was not truthful. 🤷 That said, I don’t know why Mother Jones went after O’Reilly instead of Geraldo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top