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.
The year is 1982; I see stories from Mexico reporting on a story from the country but they are reporting from Mexico City or even San Diego. No internet back then, '82 or whenever. If he was broadcasting from the streets too, hard to see that as the Falklands.

It’s just hairsplitting. I haven’t seen anything that indicates O’Reilly embellished his story or falsified info over standard procedure. “In the Falklands”, that’s about all one can run with as to saying he said something false.

What do you have there? Penguins, birds like these: paradiseintheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/falkland-islands.jpg Secluded islands really.
 
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...
In other words you have no facts but since you don’t like him, explains your point of view.
 
Actually, I don’t care what these two men say, nothing they say will affect me or you. What concerns me is what Obama says and he has been caught in many lies.

“if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, “insurance rates will go down for every family” and the list goes on and on.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
EmperorNapoleon said:
Like O’Reilly, the veracity of Williams’ claims required investigation. O’Reilly may eventually find the integrity to admit he was not truthful. 🤷
Click to expand...
If he was untruthful.
EmperorNapoleon said:
That said, I don’t know why Mother Jones went after O’Reilly instead of Geraldo.
Click to expand...
O’Reilly is perceived as being the more conservative of the two. I don’t even think Geraldo is considered conservative.
 
Tomdstone said:
Questions about O’Reilly’s spin on events are being raised about his story of murdered nuns in El Salvador. And also, his spin on the suicide George de Mohrenschildt.
money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/media/bill-oreilly-el-salvador-nuns/index.html?section=money_topstories
Click to expand...
Faulty memory or prone to exaggeration or liar? I’m not sure. Certainly, I can understand making mistakes about events 35 years ago, but then I wouldn’t be afraid to admit the mistake. Bill O threatens and acts in name calling that would get you suspended if you did it in this forum…
 
Crossbones said:
Faulty memory or prone to exaggeration or liar? I’m not sure. Certainly, I can understand making mistakes about events 35 years ago, but then I wouldn’t be afraid to admit the mistake. Bill O threatens and acts in name calling that would get you suspended if you did it in this forum…
Click to expand...
“… reporters have questioned O’Reilly’s claim – printed in his book, “Killing Kennedy” – to have heard the gunshot that killed George de Mohrenschildt…Mohrenschildt’s death was dramatic, important news: He killed himself in Florida …Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post editor, has posted audio tapes of O’Reilly talking with a congressional investigator around the time of the incident in conversations that leave little doubt that O’Reilly was in Dallas at the time Mohrenschildt died…“He was in Dallas” says Tracy Rowlett, who worked at WFAA at the time, according to the Huffington Post.”
cnn.com/2015/02/25/opinion/louis-bill-oreilly/index.html
 
Darryl1958 said:
In America, even if a criminal is convicted of one crime, they are not thereby considered guilty of any crime that their enemies can level at them.

This whole thread is a farce.
Click to expand...
Criminals are typically criminals. Liars are typically liars. Saints are typically dead.

ATB
 
estesbob said:
So we move the goalpost. We went from O’Reilly fabricated the story to a semantics argument about the definition of a “war zone”
Click to expand...
The story is about O’Reilly, and others exaggerating their life experiences. In his case, he described experiences which never occurred. So, he was the one “moving goal posts”. We are just expressing our thoughts on the matter. That you fight so hard to defend the man is a little curious.

ATB
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Criminals are typically criminals. Liars are typically liars. Saints are typically dead.

ATB
Click to expand...
And honesty is not typically a left wing value.

There are many truisms to describe the world that we live in to be sure.
Nevertheless, America does not tend to assume that people that have committed one crime ought be convicted of all crimes on that account. Evidence, rather than innuendo, is typically the way that fair-minded people without an agenda go about deciding these kinds of things.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
The story is about O’Reilly, and others exaggerating their life experiences. In his case, he described experiences which never occurred. So, he was the one “moving goal posts”. We are just expressing our thoughts on the matter. That you fight so hard to defend the man is a little curious.

ATB
Click to expand...
I guess it isn’t a surprise that so many here are defending him and seem to be great fans as they emulate his behavior (never wrong, stick to repeating the same talking points over and over again, anyone who disagrees is ‘liberal’ or ‘far left’). It’s unfortunate that so many consider the bizarre blathering on these shows constitute legitimate debate.
 
Crossbones said:
I guess it isn’t a surprise that so many here are defending him and seem to be great fans as they emulate his behavior (never wrong, stick to repeating the same talking points over and over again, anyone who disagrees is ‘liberal’ or ‘far left’). It’s unfortunate that so many consider the bizarre blathering on these shows constitute legitimate debate.
Click to expand...
Not defending him as you say, but pointing out hypocrisy. Many here want to cast stones at a commentator who has a very credentialed career but ignore many from the left who blatantly lie each and every time they are on the air, Al Sharpton.

Bill O’Rieley will and is defending himself, he doesn’t need me to defend him. To be honest, I am not the biggest fan of him either, but he does have and will continue to have a reputation which is good and solid. These issues will be filed away as questionable at best just like the accusations of the past that have been brought up here dealing with sexual discrimination/hostile work environment or whatever the charges were.

In other words, inconsequential. Bill O will continue to be a thorn in the side of the left until he decides to retire.
 
Lapey said:
Not defending him as you say, but pointing out hypocrisy. Many here want to cast stones at a commentator who has a very credentialed career but ignore many from the left who blatantly lie each and every time they are on the air, Al Sharpton.

Bill O’Rieley will and is defending himself, he doesn’t need me to defend him. To be honest, I am not the biggest fan of him either, but he does have and will continue to have a reputation which is good and solid. These issues will be filed away as questionable at best just like the accusations of the past that have been brought up here dealing with sexual discrimination/hostile work environment or whatever the charges were.

In other words, inconsequential. Bill O will continue to be a thorn in the side of the left until he decides to retire.
Click to expand...
If it’s any comfort, when I say the whole format of blathering talk shows host shouting down their guests is a waste. O’Reilly, Matthews, Sharpton, Hannity. All have no useful purpose in bringing light to the problems we face as a society today - they just create heat.

As for being a thorn, well, I’m sure he’d like to think so. I don’t really see him as anything different than the Kardasians.
 
Crossbones said:
If it’s any comfort, when I say the whole format of blathering talk shows host shouting down their guests is a waste. O’Reilly, Matthews, Sharpton, Hannity. All have no useful purpose in bringing light to the problems we face as a society today - they just create heat.

As for being a thorn, well, I’m sure he’d like to think so. I don’t really see him as anything different than the Kardasians.
Click to expand...
Well, creating heat about important issues is a lot more valuable than creating heat about the daily lives of some wealthy family.

(The Kardashians, and their strange following, remind me of that Juliana Hatfield song “Supermodel” which describes them well:

The highest paid piece of *$%
You know it’s not gonna last
Those magazines end up in the trash, yeah

What’s the big idea? None of that stuff is even real
Want to know how they really feel, yeah

Five thousand dollars a day
Is what they pay my baby
For her pretty face
Five thousand dollars a day
Is what they pay my baby
For her pretty face

I came over as soon as she called
'Cause she’s a living doll
And she’s famous for nothing at all, yeah
She’s living life like a dream
With a false sense of self-esteem
I wish she’d trade places with me
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Five thousand dollars a day
Is what they pay my baby
For her pretty face
Five thousand dollars a day
Is what they pay my baby
For her pretty face
)
 
Peebo said:
Wrong…the Falklands are known as the Malvinas by Argentina
Click to expand...
And that would be their name for everybody, if Argentina had actually been successful in their aggression.
But they lost.
 
Darryl1958 said:
And that would be their name for everybody, if Argentina had actually been successful in their aggression.
But they lost.
Click to expand...
I was quoting part of your statement that “nobody died in the Malvinas”.which they did…whether they are called the Falklands or Malvinas is inconsequencial
 
And that would be their name for everybody, if Argentina had actually been successful in their aggression.
But they lost.
Click to expand...
But the war was not over the names of the islands and I don’t know if any rationale would say that is why they should be called Falklands by everyone.

Cartographers have made maps forever. Would it be proposed as an unwritten law that they would change their maps to call the islands Falklands if a map is in Spanish or possibly even Portuguese? I recognize Great Britain won that war but I’m not sure if that is central here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
The history of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) goes back at least five hundred years, with active exploration and colonisation only taking place in the 18th century.
Click to expand...
It’s just a difference in language I would say, not a political statement.

There are not even 3,000 people there.

Las Vegas, Nevada is not called “The Meadows, Snowy Place”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top