Brian Williams, now Bill O'Reilly, who's next?

[real-human]

too un-funny.... here is a network and O'Liely who took Al Frankan a comedian to court because they did not like his free speech. That they even had the stupidity to put in a court filing Franken is to the effect a drunk and unfunny.. this is in a real court filing. And as the judge points out how stupid/dense people are at Fux and their followers/lemmings because they can not tell the cover was a joke/satire. So how are the right wingers to understand something as complex as a lie if they can not tell what a joke is and have no clue to reality.. IE fair and balanced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/nyregion/in-courtroom-laughter-at-fox-and-a-victory-for-al-franken.html

[beaglebuddy]

"I WAS IN A SITUATION ONE TIME IN A WAR ZONE IN ARGENTINA, IN THE FALKLANDS" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3veRZuHSew
These are the words in question that cannot be interpreted any other way.
Other times words he said are in a grey area that make it sound like he was in a war zone but technically could be interpreted another way, that's bad enough but what he says in this video is a flat out lie that he cannot spin his way out of.
Let's be clear, both sides spin the news, what Brian Williams said is at least as bad probably worse but at least he was actually in a war zone.

[LHDR]

The most interesting aspect of this is not whether O'Reilly lied or not. Beaglebuddy makes the obvious point when he links to the Falkland war zone statement while, in reality, O'Reilly was in a demonstration in Buenos Aires. A violent demonstration, to be sure, but, to me, calling this a war zone is a lie with the intent to prop up his credentials and an insult to anyone who has had to experience an actual war zone. This being O'Reilly, it doesn't seem surprising and hardly worth serious repercussions. (If I had to, I'd rank it a lesser infraction than the ones by Williams and Clinton.)

The more interesting part is the type of comments by the usual suspects defending O'Reilly, like "anyone who still claims O'Reilly lied is not interested in the truth" without pointing out what on O'Reilly's Monday broadcast would justify such statement. And, of course, without acknowledging the simple argument by beaglebuddy.

[uwindsurf]

[isobars]

You guys didn't watch Monday night's broadcast closely, right down to literally the last two words of the 1982 (?) broadcast. You're also completely and eagerly ignoring the overall broadcast setting in which the clock gave O'Reilly mere seconds to:
• identify the event (the Falklands war),
• describe the immediate environment, a war-related "battle zone" (direct quote from the original network broadcast news story) riot in Buenos Aires]
• in which film crewmen were knocked down -- CBS's or NBC's words at the time -- in the streets
• shown on film to involve police firing tear countless rounds of gas and bullets into the mob,
• which ideologue Engberg still claims never happened despite the films,
• proving O'Reilly's stated suspicion (not accusation) that Engberg was not there,
• reports at the time of several rioters being killed,
• and all after O'Reilly had made it clear that they were in BA, not on the Falkland Islands, because journalists were physically banned from the islands themselves (to conceal the extent of the war, IIRC from the time).

The whole 37-year package, from Rather's original broadcast to the live telephone interview with the highly respected then-head of NBC news from back then, addresses, clarifies, and explains who said what, why, and when, including BB's snippet. Witch hunters can and will spin it any way they wish. You've already gotten more of my time than I can spare; there's no way in hell I'm going to regurgitate and explain every nuance and word in even last night's broadcast, let alone the entire past week. It would be like trying to nail diarrhea to a Teflon wall, aka arguing with mac.

One more time: I've pointed you guys to the information which clarified the whole story to open minded people. It's not my job to pound it into skeptics' heads. i.e., Do You Own Homework.

[nw30]

Who's next?
Well it seems that O'Reilly is off the hook, but not so with the V.A. Sec.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VA secretary apologizes for misstating military record

Associated Press

11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald apologized Monday for misstating that he served in the military's special forces.

McDonald made the erroneous claim while speaking to a homeless veteran during a segment that aired last month on "CBS Evening News."

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."

The VA website says McDonald is an Army veteran who served with the 82nd Airborne Division. The Huffington Post website, which first reported on McDonald's mistake, noted Monday that the 82nd is not considered part of special forces.

McDonald said he remains committed "to the ongoing effort to reform VA."

The White House issued a statement Monday saying, "We take him at his word and expect that this will not impact the important work he's doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation's veterans."

President Barack Obama chose the former Procter & Gamble CEO to take over the scandal-plagued VA last year, and McDonald took office last July. The questions about McDonald's service come as TV newsmen Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly have had their claims about covering foreign wars called into question.

http://news.yahoo.com/va-secretary-apologizes-misstating-military-record-042000544--politics.html

[mac]

Sometimes you all miss the point. Bill O'Reilly screams things that the Isobars of the world love to hear, so he will defend him no matter what the facts are. But this is a constant in the Faux news world. You all apparently missed the comment of Fox Anchor Kristi Capel, a Cleveland newsie, who criticized Lady Gaga for playing "jigaboo music." That's right, an overt racial slur.

All of these "personalities" who read the news, and have little idea how to collect it, should be fired. But any Murdoch operation is the polar opposite of journalism. It is more pandering to bias. The worst thing that has ever happened to freedom of the press.

[beaglebuddy]

Shutup mac and quit trying to hijack my thread, we all know you are race obsessed and see a racist behind every tree but WTF has that got to do with O'Reilly, Williams and now the VA guy? Take it elsewhere.
And you of course are neglecting the obvious, leftist news outlets pander to their base too.

[mac]

Another thoughtful right wing comment. When "fair and balanced" commentators on Fox use a racial slur, the appropriate response is to shut up. You guys keep pretending that racism has nothing to do with this--but you keep pandering to it. I guess you're ok with her comments.

[beaglebuddy]

VA guy, well if he only told one person in a private conversation this is not nearly as bad and I always considered the 82nd to be special forces but thinking about it I suppose not.
What pisses me off is his response to problems at the VA, now every time I call the VA I have to sit thru recordings of "if you are thinking of harming yourself..." at every department I'm connected to, and questions about my mental health every time I talk to a doctor first before we can talk about anything else, it's enough to make a person want to harm themselves.