• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bill O'Reilly Has Had His Brian Williams Moment Says New Mother Jones Report

Status
Not open for further replies.

Is this the Chewbacca defense?

Documents complimenting him his coverage of riots (I assume in Buenos Aires?) does not place him in a war zone in the Falklands.

It proves he was was in Buenos Aires - which is exactly where the allegations say he was while he was claiming to HAVE BEEN THROUGH HELL AND BACK IN THE FALKLANDS
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
And the party keeps on truckin'!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ex-c...oreillys-war-zone-story-he-should-be-ashamed/

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has tried hard over the past 48 hours to discredit reports from Mother Jones that claim he exaggerated his experience covering the Falkland Islands war more than 30 years ago. But those efforts may get a good deal more difficult after the latest development, courtesy of O’Reilly’s former CBS News colleague, Eric Jon Engberg, who also covered that war from Argentina.

In a lengthy Facebook post published on Friday, Engberg raised several questions about the claims made by O’Reilly over the years about being in a “war zone” and hearing gunfire in the streets.

“Did Fox News bloviater Bill O’Reilly commit Brian Williams type fabrications when he claimed he had been in a ‘combat situation’ while working as a reporter for CBS News during the Falklands War in 1982?” Engberg asks at the top of his post. “Did he pad his resume’ as he was laying claim to personal knowledge about what happens in war?” Over 11 paragraphs, he laid out areas in which he does believe O’Reilly “twisted the truth.”

Engberg demanded that O’Reilly identify the photographer who was supposedly bleeding from his ear when the Fox anchor says he helped rescue him from violent riots. In his coverage of the Facebook post, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple has named the photographer as Roberto Moreno though efforts to reach him for comment have been unsuccessful.

By referring to the events he witnessed in Buenos Aires as a “combat situation,” even in his defense of the Mother Jones piece, Engberg wrote that O’Reilly is “misrepresenting the situation he covered, and he is obviously doing so to burnish his credentials as a ‘war correspondent,’ which is not the work he was performing during the Falklands war.”

“I don’t think it’s as big a lie as Brian Williams told because O’Reilly hasn’t falsely claimed to be the target of an enemy attack, but he has displayed a willingness to twist the truth in a way that seeks to invent a battlefield that did not exist,” Engberg added. “And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced. He also ought to be ashamed of himself.”

UPDATE — 07:22 p.m. ET: Fox News released the following statement:

“The O’Reilly Factor invited Eric Engberg to appear on the program this Monday and he refused. The Factor has also contacted CBS News and asked them to release the footage in question. Bill O’Reilly will address Engberg’s claims on Mediabuzz w/ Howard Kurtz tomorrow at 11 AM/ET.”

The post in question: https://www.facebook.com/eric.j.engberg/posts/10204873374051471
 

Apt101

Member
I remember reading an interesting story about Bill O'Reilly by Al Franken. Franken was considering legal action against O'Reilly concerning lies O'Reilly was telling about Franken and about himself. Franken consulted a lawyer who told him it would be very difficult to win any damages in court, because when a person lies as often, fragrantly, and crazily as does O'Reilly, it's almost impossible to prove that they were trying to cause harm with the specific lies a plaintiff is complaining about.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
Someone should just continually ask Bill O'Relly how he got there.

How'd he get there? Did God put him there?
 

antonz

Member
Never saw the real purpose behind this in the first place other than trying for a gotcha moment to try and deflect off Williams some of the heat.
 

lol Engberg's own voice is narrating that report about the rioting. Welp.

Never saw the real purpose behind this in the first place other than trying for a gotcha moment to try and deflect off Williams some of the heat.

This seemed incredibly desperate from the beginning. Is someone going to go after an Entertainment Tonight host next?

What's the word for these kinds of posts? (Particularly the first two, given that the footage only backs up a premise that no one is disputing?)

Facile?
 
The difference is O'Reilly isn't an anchor.
For that particular "war" story, O'Reilly was a reporter. But even as a commentator, you are not supposed to lie . . . they just spin a particular narrative by emphasizing certain facts to express their opinion.

51xTgWnbc-L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


ynO2LK4.jpg


Burnage!

And it should be pointed out that Tucker Carlson is a fellow conservative like O'Reilly.

O'Reilly really is a blowhard and Stephen Colbert has had a great career out of emulating him.
 
Just more proof there is no integrity at Fox News, Bill knows it, Fox knows it, and every body else does, except for the very dumb and easily manipulated vocal minority. None of this stuff will stick and Bill will keep going with his rotten show.

Like Jon Stewart said, nobody that watches Bill O'Reilly is watching him for the truth.
 

way more

Member
Business Insider has a write up of how one of Bill's fiction books actually mirrors the tale he has been telling.

51jwzj1pdkl.jpg


One of those characters is Shannon Michaels, who like O'Reilly, is a tall, Irish-American journalist who was sent to cover the Falklands War for a television network. The protest is a life-changing moment for Michaels where, as he puts it, he "almost got killed."

In O'Reilly's story, Michaels is on the scene reporting for the fictional network GNN on June 15, 1982 when thousands of Argentines angry over the surrender rioted in front of the president's residence, La Casa Rosada.

In O'Reilly's novel the protest was broken up by soldiers, or as the author put it, "combat-ready shock troops dressed in full battle gear and armed with machine guns." At this point, Michaels, one of the characters described as O'Reilly's fictional "alter ego" realized he "had to get away" with his cameraman and soundman. As Michaels and his crew escaped, the soldiers let loose on the crowd.

"Without warning, they began firing directly into the crowd," O'Reilly wrote, adding, "Hundreds of people immediately fell onto the cement."

At this point in O'Reilly's tale, Michaels' cameraman and soundman, "Francisco" and "Juan" are knocked down by "a pack of fleeing young men." Michaels comes to their rescue by "fighting his way through the panicked mob." After their rescue, the two men are concerned with retrieving an expensive camera they dropped in the melee.

"Fuck the camera, it's gone. Get moving," Michaels declared.

Juan resists Michaels' order leading the heroic journalist to hit him with what O'Reilly described as a "murderous" look and an order to, "Get the fuck out of here Juan."

Notable because his colleagues describe Bill as putting the cameraman and himself in danger by turning on lights and having Bill stand in front and narrate the events.


O'Reilly's story continued with Michaels carrying his injured cameraman away amid "gunfire and screams." As they escaped. Michaels noticed his colleague was bleeding badly and needed to get to a doctor. This was no simple task in O'Reilly's fictionalized version of the protest.

"Movement of any kind would not be easy," O'Reilly wrote, continuing, "The crowd was in complete disarray. Scores of dead and wounded lay on the cold concrete."

Michaels was involved in a tense standoff with a soldier who had "an M-16 pointed directly at his head." Just as they were about to drive off they were also stopped by a secret policeman who attempted to take their tapes. Michaels eliminated the threat by knocking out the secret policeman with a punch O'Reilly described as guided by "pure instinct" and "pure adrenaline" that was fueled by the "violence" he "had just experienced."

Sounds like old Gramps may have conflated his "mystery thriller about the fast-paced and ruthless world of TV journalism" with his own life.


Along the way, there are plenty of raunchy sex scenes including one where Michaels shows a fellow journalist something he "learned in Thailand."

Grandpa, gross!

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreillys-wild-story-about-the-falklands-war-2015-2#ixzz3SndvynUQ
 
I remember O Reilly paying off that woman behind court over that phone sex conversation many years. I mean, if you're not guilty, why not fight the accuser and make her look foolish?
 

FStop7

Banned
The difference is that you should have already assumed everything Bill O'Reilly says is a distortion or a lie.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
I agree with John Stewart about this "Who gives a shit?"

Lets focus on the liars in office that get us into unnecessary wars in the 1st place, not idiot talking heads.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
I remember O Reilly paying off that woman behind court over that phone sex conversation many years. I mean, if you're not guilty, why not fight the accuser and make her look foolish?

Funniest part about that was the revelation that O'Rielly names his dildos.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
He's was a reporter. He's lying about what he reported on.

Not sure I see the difference.

You don't matter in this discussion his bosses who let him be the shill is do. Since his audience and his bosses won't care I doubt he will face what BW did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom