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

[beaglebuddy]

Why don't you start yet another thread about racism, take it elsewhere, that's not what this thread is about.

[beaglebuddy]

Mike, not talking about his original report back in 82'
The problems are what he has said since then various times on TV, radio and in print. Little quips about how he was "in the Falklands", "in combat", "in a war zone" etc... insinuating he was reporting from the middle of various wars with bullets flying about being chased by the army, dragging injured people to safety etc... when nothing of the sort is true at all.
I'm sure his report from 82' was perfectly legit at the time, after all the war had been over for two weeks and it was clear he was reporting on a riot in BA.
THE PROBLEM IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT IT SINCE THEN.

[mac]

Oh, this thread is not about journalism? As long as Murdoch companies snoop on cell phones and make false comments, what is the thread about? Integrity in journalism?

[isobars]

[uwindsurf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/24/the-bill-oreilly-scandal-made-simple/

Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly, host of the highest-rated show in cable news, is under fire for reasons that are drawing comparisons to Brian Williams’ recent troubles. In case you haven’t had the time or inclination to sort through all the back-and-forth, here’s a simple guide to this affair.

* The basic charge — that O’Reilly exaggerated his record covering war — is true.

It all started with this article 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 a 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.

Then there’s the matter of the protest itself. O’Reilly asserts that Argentine soldiers were “gunning people down in the streets” as evidence of how combat-esque the scene was; he wrote in one of his books that “many were killed.” But neither the story that CBS ran that evening nor any contemporaneous reporting mentions anyone being killed. The Post’s Erik Wemple has tried to substantiate O’Reilly’s claim, and been unable to do so. Former CBS reporters who were O’Reilly’s colleagues at the time have also disputed his description of the protest, which was certainly violent, but as far as we know, not actually deadly. But even if everything O’Reilly said about that protest was true, it wouldn’t mean that he had seen combat.

* O’Reilly can’t admit that he was wrong.

To the surprise of no one who is familiar with his modus operandi, O’Reilly has responded to the evidence against him with a stream of invective against anyone who contradicts him. He called David Corn a “guttersnipe liar,” and called CNN’s Brian Stelter, a media reporter whose sin was merely discussing this story, a “far-left zealot.” When a reporter from the New York Times called to get his comments on the story, he told her that if the article she wrote didn’t meet with his approval, he would retaliate against her. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” he said. “You can take it as a threat.”

So why not just say, “I may have mischaracterized things a few times” and move on? To understand why that’s impossible, you have to understand O’Reilly’s persona and the function he serves for his viewers. The central theme of The O’Reilly Factor is that the true America, represented by the elderly whites who make up his audience (the median age of his viewers is 72) is in an unending war with the forces of liberalism, secularism, and any number of other isms. Bill O’Reilly is a four-star general in that war, and the only way to win is to fight.

The allegedly liberal media are one of the key enemies in that war. You don’t negotiate with your enemies, you fight them. And so when O’Reilly is being criticized by the media, to admit that they might have a point would be to betray everything he stands for and that he has told his viewers night after night for the better part of two decades.

* The truth of the charges against him won’t matter.

Brian Williams got suspended from NBC News because his bosses feared that his tall tales had cost him credibility with his audience, which could lead that audience to go elsewhere for their news. O’Reilly and his boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, are not worried about damage to Bill O’Reilly’s credibility, or about his viewers deserting him. Their loyalty to him isn’t based on a spotless record of factual accuracy; it’s based on the fact that O’Reilly is a medium for their anger and resentments.

[wynsurfer]

The violent protest in Buenos Aries was not anything even remotely close to being in "a war zone" The police were firing rubber bullets.

[J64TWB]

I'm confused. Would this make him a pinhead or patriot? Could some one please explain? What does bloviate mean? I think it was his favorite word.

By the way, I just received my free gold safe to store the gold I bought watching his show. I saw the ad about 10,000 times last week and couldn't resist. Pretty sure this safe will hold my gold.

[coboardhead]

[beaglebuddy]

Mike, I don't have a TV so I haven't been listening to everything the leprechaun has been bloviating about but I just watched on my computer the leprechaun trying to defend himself in several interviews and from his show.
My opinion on the matter has not changed, he attempts to change the debate to what actually happened that day in BA as opposed to what the actual problem is, specifically his insinuations over the years that he reported from various war zones and then his outright claim to have reported from the Falklands which really put it over the top.
What happened that day in BA is completely irrelevant because it happened two weeks after the war ended and 1200 miles away from any "war"
The issue is about the leprechauns outright claims and insinuations over the years to have reported from war zones. A riot is unrest, a disturbance, many things but not a war or armed conflict, it can only be an armed conflict if both sides are shooting at each other.
But what really matters is what he was implying when he made these claims and in this regard he has been dishonest.

[MalibuGuru]