What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looks like another major news anchor is going down (1 Viewer)

The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.

 
I think NBC knows he's been doing this for awhile and is trying to get away from him to avoid being under the house of cards when it falls. There's no way he gets dropped for just the Iraq issue.
I read somewhere that NBC knew this story was BS years ago and had literally asked him to stop repeating it.

 
I think NBC knows he's been doing this for awhile and is trying to get away from him to avoid being under the house of cards when it falls. There's no way he gets dropped for just the Iraq issue.
I read somewhere that NBC knew this story was BS years ago and had literally asked him to stop repeating it.
I read somewhere they are breeding pigs to be bright green. they almost glow in the dark.

 
Mr. Ham said:
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
America has slid epically the last 30 years? How so?

 
Mr. Ham said:
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
:lmao:

Brian Williams isn't remotely close to the real issue with the current state of the press and journalism. While he probably should be fired, embellishing on stories like that with no consequence has no substantive impact on anybody or anything outside of their status as agents of news. You want to get into the problems with "news", start with the Fox News model, click bait, intellectual dishonesty, writing to a desired end game rather than on the story, social media morons, etc. And America has slid epically in the past 30 years? Can you cite some examples?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
:lmao:

Brian Williams isn't remotely close to the real issue with the current state of the press and journalism. While he probably should be fired, embellishing on stories like that with no consequence has no substantive impact on anybody or anything outside of their status as agents of news. You want to get into the problems with "news", start with the Fox News model, click bait, intellectual dishonesty, writing to a desired end game rather than on the story, social media morons, etc. And America has slid epically in the past 30 years? Can you cite some examples?
Then there's MSNBC which basicallly is a house organ for the DNC.
 
Mr. Ham said:
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
:lmao:

Brian Williams isn't remotely close to the real issue with the current state of the press and journalism. While he probably should be fired, embellishing on stories like that with no consequence has no substantive impact on anybody or anything outside of their status as agents of news. You want to get into the problems with "news", start with the Fox News model, click bait, intellectual dishonesty, writing to a desired end game rather than on the story, social media morons, etc. And America has slid epically in the past 30 years? Can you cite some examples?
I don't know, I think this whole mess does a pretty good job of illustrating the newsman as celebrity that we have today. They're concerned with being seen as celebrities and love the high profile friendships with high powered politicians, other celebrities and influential businessmen. Part of the reason that the adversarial relationship between press and politics has diminished is because it turns out that the people in the press love the perks and prestige of relationships with these folks.

 
Mr. Ham said:
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
:lmao:

Brian Williams isn't remotely close to the real issue with the current state of the press and journalism. While he probably should be fired, embellishing on stories like that with no consequence has no substantive impact on anybody or anything outside of their status as agents of news. You want to get into the problems with "news", start with the Fox News model, click bait, intellectual dishonesty, writing to a desired end game rather than on the story, social media morons, etc. And America has slid epically in the past 30 years? Can you cite some examples?
Fox News model doesn't exist if not for the complete centralization of information dissemination in the hands of a one-party, completely liberal journalistic enterprise. I would personally start with a profession that has largely self-identified as at least 90% from the left. Let's call it the Big Three model.

 
So where were all the people when Jayson Blair got busted for making #### up?
Busy getting him canned and embarrassing the NYT for not fact-checking or upholding any reasonable journo standards? That was scandalous, too. The internet wasn't full swing yet, though.

Also, race played no small part in the discussion, then and now. I mean, have fun discussing race in America.

Aftermath[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]The investigation saw heated debate over affirmative action hiring. Jonathan Landman, Blair's editor, told the Siegal committee he felt being black played a large part in Blair's initial promotion to full-time staffer. "I think race was the decisive factor in his promotion," he said. "I thought then and I think now that it was the wrong decision."[15]

Five days later, Times African-American op-ed columnist Bob Herbert asserted in his column that race had nothing to do with the Blair case: "Listen up: the race issue in this case is as bogus as some of Jayson Blair's reporting." Herbert said, "[F]olks who delight in attacking anything black, or anything designed to help blacks, have pounced on the Blair story as evidence that there is something inherently wrong with The Times's effort to diversify its newsroom, and beyond that, with the very idea of a commitment to diversity or affirmative action anywhere. And while these agitators won't admit it, the nasty subtext to their attack is that there is something inherently wrong with blacks."[16]

After resigning from The Times, Blair returned to college and said he planned to go into politics.[17] The year after he left the Times, he published a memoir, Burning Down My Master's House. Although its initial print run was 250,000 copies, only 1,400 were sold in its first nine days.[18]

 
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/david-corn-hits-back-at-bill-oreilly-202828.html?hp=r1_4_b1

David Corn hits back at Bill O'Reilly

By DYLAN BYERS | 2/19/15 7:30 PM EST

David Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements.

"To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."

Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."

In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.

O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience.

"He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."

 
IMAX 3D said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/david-corn-hits-back-at-bill-oreilly-202828.html?hp=r1_4_b1David Corn hits back at Bill O'ReillyBy DYLAN BYERS | 2/19/15 7:30 PM ESTDavid Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements."To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience."He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."
So what's his proof now? And where's the piece?
See the OP link.

Edited to add:

Unfortunately for Bill O’Reilly, Mother Jones has video of O’Reilly saying what he now claims he never said. (video at link):

http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_responds_to_mother_jones_brian_williams_piece_with_name_calling_021915

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being that the O'Reilly Factor is the one show on Fox that I actually watch sometimes (certain segments with certain guests are entertaining), I can say that while O'Reilly did say about Williams that it's bad form for anchors to lie like he did, but generally was not that critical of him and gave him the benefit of the doubt when the story first broke, so it's not like O'Reilly has been waving the "Williams is the devil for lying" flag.

 
I'm starting to wonder if Hulk Hogan really hated all those other guys. He'd get so worked up, rip his shirt off, just about turn purple saying he was gonna whup Roddy Piper or whoever. I never thought to question his sincerity at the time.

 
I hope this doesn't turn out into a witch hunt to find other tv dudes who've embellished their involvement in dangerous situations.

What Williams did was wrong and he should be punished accordingly, not have it minimized because others have done it too.

 
IMAX 3D said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/david-corn-hits-back-at-bill-oreilly-202828.html?hp=r1_4_b1David Corn hits back at Bill O'ReillyBy DYLAN BYERS | 2/19/15 7:30 PM ESTDavid Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements."To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience."He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."
So what's his proof now? And where's the piece?
See the OP link.

Edited to add:

Unfortunately for Bill O’Reilly, Mother Jones has video of O’Reilly saying what he now claims he never said. (video at link):

http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_responds_to_mother_jones_brian_williams_piece_with_name_calling_021915
Seems like a reach to compare what O'reilly said to Williams unless he made up the part about his his camera man being injured and helping him.

 
I'm starting to wonder if Hulk Hogan really hated all those other guys. He'd get so worked up, rip his shirt off, just about turn purple saying he was gonna whup Roddy Piper or whoever. I never thought to question his sincerity at the time.
#### Hulk Hogan. :hot:

 
IMAX 3D said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/david-corn-hits-back-at-bill-oreilly-202828.html?hp=r1_4_b1David Corn hits back at Bill O'ReillyBy DYLAN BYERS | 2/19/15 7:30 PM ESTDavid Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements."To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience."He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."
So what's his proof now? And where's the piece?
See the OP link.

Edited to add:

Unfortunately for Bill O’Reilly, Mother Jones has video of O’Reilly saying what he now claims he never said. (video at link):

http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_responds_to_mother_jones_brian_williams_piece_with_name_calling_021915
Seems like a reach to compare what O'reilly said to Williams unless he made up the part about his his camera man being injured and helping him.
so it's ok for one reporter to trade on his proximity and exposure to conflict zones but not another? "no spin zone" indeed.

 
Only liberal media types have to resign when they do something wrong or lie. No one takes the conservatives seriously enough to hold them to the same standard.

 
I give him a pass and here's why: The Gulf war was the first war where the attack was televised from the inside. You had members of the press imbedded with the military going across enemy lines. The Pentagon wanted to win the war publicly and what better way than to show it unfold live from the inside. Now you have reporter types who are seeing combat up close and personal. These are not military types but people who live in a studio and in front of a camera. They are not experiencing what is happening the same way military people are. Everyone has a job to do but for a news anchor to be exposed to that kind of danger has to be a terrifying assignment, not your every day story.

So my take on what happened is you have a news guy flying around in military helicopters around the edges of battle. He's keeping his eyes open, pupils fully dilated, heart pounding trying to ask questions so he can do his job and report on the war. A job both his network and the Pentagon wants him to do. He flying a route where some helicopters proceeded him into enemy territory and he finds out that one of them came under enemy fire and was hit. Holy crap, he thinks. The same route I just flew on and here you have a chopper that went just before us and got hit. Wow, that could have been me. This is dangerous, i could have been killed. We're still across enemy lines. I'm scared ####less. He calls his bosses. Holy crap, he says, the chopper convoy I'm riding with took fire and one of them went down. We're across enemy lines. He's genuinely frightened. Why wouldn't he be? He's usually just a guy who stands in front of a camera.

So the years pass and as he recounts his frightening ordeal he remembers coming under enemy fire and a bird going down. He remembers how scary that time was and how crazy that it was that he, a news guy, was on a military chopper that took enemy fire. He's asked about that day all the time and as the years pass the day becomes more dangerous, the soldiers he was traveling with become even more brave, the memories seem even more surreal. Can you believe it, he says, i was on a military chopper that came under fire in the middle of a war. How nuts is that?

So now 12 years later he's recounting the story yet again in a profile for a retiring soldier and he gets called out on his account by the other soldiers who were there. You have to think for them that day was not close to harrowing experience that is was for Brian Williams. it would be like being on the set of a Martin Scorcese movie for a day. You got to watch the Billy Batts murder scene from Goodfellas from way off to the side of the set. You saw Scorcese, Deniro and everyone else. You tell all your friends. Oh my God, DeNiro walked right by me, he smiled and nodded to me. I saw it all from up close. The movie comes out and you tell all your friends that you were right next to the bar. You got hit with a little splatter of fake blood. You had a long conversation with the lady who styled Liotta's hair. You were right there! Then years later you're telling the story again on the internet and someone who was working on the film. someone who works all the time in the movie business, who was also on the set that day says your account of what happened is an exaggeration. He says you were nowhere near the bar, that you were hundred of yards away, in a tent, watching everything from a great distance. You couldn't even see in the bar. Maybe you got a glimpse of Deniro walking into the bar. Maybe. Maybe you talked to an assistant of an assistant who told you they were filming a murder. Maybe it wasn't even the Billy Batts scene at all, maybe it was another scene that didn't even make it into the movie. Maybe it wasn't even Goodfellas. You think about your memories and maybe in the excitement of being around a movie set for the first time you over exaggerated your experience. The more you think about it, you definitely did. Oh well, it was an exciting day for me anyway. Haven't had an experience like that before or since, to be so close to something like that. Anyway, you're right, sorry for exaggerating.

Brian Williams and the everyone else will move on. He's not going anywhere. The next time he has a harrowing experience like that, if he ever does, he'll recount it a little less spectacularly but tough to blame his if he added some panache to it anyway.
:tebow: Gotta hand it to you. That has got to be the biggest pile of you-know-what of a justification I've read in maybe forever on this board. Are you William's agent or something?

 
IMAX 3D said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/david-corn-hits-back-at-bill-oreilly-202828.html?hp=r1_4_b1David Corn hits back at Bill O'ReillyBy DYLAN BYERS | 2/19/15 7:30 PM ESTDavid Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements."To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience."He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."
So what's his proof now? And where's the piece?
See the OP link.

Edited to add:

Unfortunately for Bill O’Reilly, Mother Jones has video of O’Reilly saying what he now claims he never said. (video at link):

http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_responds_to_mother_jones_brian_williams_piece_with_name_calling_021915
Seems like a reach to compare what O'reilly said to Williams unless he made up the part about his his camera man being injured and helping him.
so it's ok for one reporter to trade on his proximity and exposure to conflict zones but not another? "no spin zone" indeed.
Williams was very specific about the details of his story and it turned out to be blatantly false and now it appears he has quite a history of doing the same thing. This O'reilly story looks more like an argument over semantics. The facts are that he was in Argentina reporting on conflict in the Falkland islands and at some point he got caught in the middle of some kind of protest/riot. The way he made the claim in that video seems like considered the riot part of the warzone...point is I'm not really sure. You could maybe say that was an exaggeration but I really don't know much about the whole conflict or how bad the said riot was. In either case it's really not similar to claiming your helicopter was shot down by a RPG, saving puppies from a burning building, watching corpses floating by in areas of NO that weren't flooded etc.

 
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
:lmao:

Brian Williams isn't remotely close to the real issue with the current state of the press and journalism. While he probably should be fired, embellishing on stories like that with no consequence has no substantive impact on anybody or anything outside of their status as agents of news. You want to get into the problems with "news", start with the Fox News model, click bait, intellectual dishonesty, writing to a desired end game rather than on the story, social media morons, etc. And America has slid epically in the past 30 years? Can you cite some examples?
Then there's MSNBC which basicallly is a house organ for the DNC.
News to me when I watch Scarborough and his group of ninnies cheerlead all things republican every morning.

 
IMAX 3D said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/david-corn-hits-back-at-bill-oreilly-202828.html?hp=r1_4_b1David Corn hits back at Bill O'ReillyBy DYLAN BYERS | 2/19/15 7:30 PM ESTDavid Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements."To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience."He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."
So what's his proof now? And where's the piece?
See the OP link.

Edited to add:

Unfortunately for Bill O’Reilly, Mother Jones has video of O’Reilly saying what he now claims he never said. (video at link):

http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_responds_to_mother_jones_brian_williams_piece_with_name_calling_021915
Seems like a reach to compare what O'reilly said to Williams unless he made up the part about his his camera man being injured and helping him.
so it's ok for one reporter to trade on his proximity and exposure to conflict zones but not another? "no spin zone" indeed.
Williams was very specific about the details of his story and it turned out to be blatantly false and now it appears he has quite a history of doing the same thing. This O'reilly story looks more like an argument over semantics. The facts are that he was in Argentina reporting on conflict in the Falkland islands and at some point he got caught in the middle of some kind of protest/riot. The way he made the claim in that video seems like considered the riot part of the warzone...point is I'm not really sure. You could maybe say that was an exaggeration but I really don't know much about the whole conflict or how bad the said riot was. In either case it's really not similar to claiming your helicopter was shot down by a RPG, saving puppies from a burning building, watching corpses floating by in areas of NO that weren't flooded etc.
IOCIYAR

 
The health of any government can be measured by the relationship between the press and that government, and the impartiality and freedom of the press. Objectively, most would agree that America has slid epically in the past 30 years and you could measure that slide with spooky correlation to the consolidation and bastardization of real news and journalism. I think I'd like Brian Williams personally, but he chose a profession where a breach of trust is far more than a mere embarrassment... It represents the heart of corruption, a Cancer that has to be treated aggressively.
:lmao:

Brian Williams isn't remotely close to the real issue with the current state of the press and journalism. While he probably should be fired, embellishing on stories like that with no consequence has no substantive impact on anybody or anything outside of their status as agents of news. You want to get into the problems with "news", start with the Fox News model, click bait, intellectual dishonesty, writing to a desired end game rather than on the story, social media morons, etc. And America has slid epically in the past 30 years? Can you cite some examples?
Then there's MSNBC which basicallly is a house organ for the DNC.
News to me when I watch Scarborough and his group of ninnies cheerlead all things republican every morning.
Token republican.

 
Only liberal media types have to resign when they do something wrong or lie. No one takes the conservatives seriously enough to hold them to the same standard.
Kind of interesting that you consider a network anchor to be the liberal equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. What does that make Rachel Maddow, I wonder?

 
Anyone think NBC let's Williams go if his story was like Bill's?
Wasn't Williams' helicopter actually hit by fire, and they landed and spent two nights in the desert waiting to be rescued?

Doesn't bother me that Williams walked the plank, but it's not like his exaggerations weren't rooted in truth. Just like O'Reilly.

 
Anyone think NBC let's Williams go if his story was like Bill's?
Wasn't Williams' helicopter actually hit by fire, and they landed and spent two nights in the desert waiting to be rescued?

Doesn't bother me that Williams walked the plank, but it's not like his exaggerations weren't rooted in truth. Just like O'Reilly.
He was in a convoy of 4 helicopters. One was hit by fire and an RPG that didn't explode, That helicopter was some 45 minutes away from the one Williams was in. They met that copter and landed as part of the rescue. But his chopper never came under fire.

 
Anyone think NBC let's Williams go if his story was like Bill's?
Wasn't Williams' helicopter actually hit by fire, and they landed and spent two nights in the desert waiting to be rescued? Doesn't bother me that Williams walked the plank, but it's not like his exaggerations weren't rooted in truth. Just like O'Reilly.
I think the only one that claimed Williams helicopter was hit was the pilot that later recanted his statement.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top