Another POS liberal with an axe to grind with fox news, the new york times reporting from the time also included reporting of shots being fired into the crowd, so this guy is just flat out lying.
NBCs Williams telling it to David Letterman... war hero.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Corn and Engberg Claims About O’Reilly Both Politically, Personally Motivated
by Joe Concha | 10:16 am, February 22nd, 2015379
Upon watching the Bill O’Reilly controversy (or lack thereof) unfold over the past few days, it’s hard not to keep going back to the same theme:
Motive.
As in: Is the Mother Jones story (or non-story) one in search of simple truth or is it a hit piece politically or personally motivated by writer David Corn? The “liberal Mother Jones versus conservative Fox News” theme could suffice as motive on the surface, but this onion seems to have a few more layers to it, and it stinks.
As few are noting, Mr. Corn worked for Fox News as a contributor from 2001-2008. His career would end abruptly there, as the network decided not to renew his contract (which is a nice way of firing someone). Corn would go on to make an impact in the 2012 presidential election after receiving that infamous tape of Mitt Romney‘s “47 percent” comments. It’s still hilarious to see all the acclaim Corn got for basically signing for a FedEx package and uploading a tape to the Mother Jones website. He even won a Polk Award for the effort, even though it was Jimmy Carter‘s grandson who introduced the guy who actually recorded Romney (Scott Prouty) with Corn. Talk about a silver platter, but that never stops Corn from still mentioning it as if he’s trying to beat some kind of quota when appearing on MSNBC, where he serves as a contributor.
So when we look at why Corn would refute O’Reilly’s account of his time working for CBS in Argentina as a reporter covering the Falklands War in 1982, keep all of that in mind in terms of personal and political motivation. As for finding fault in O’Reilly’s account, this appears to be a case of semantics. Note: O’Reilly never said he was on the Falkland Islands, as the Corn piece claims — he’s been consistent in stating he was always in Argentina (Buenos Aires) at the time.
Skeptics — largely from left-leaning blogs — charge that Argentina wasn’t part of the war zone, therefore making O’Reilly a liar for stating he was. But protests there following the war did turn violent. In an internal CBS memo to then-Buenos Aires bureau chief Larry Doyle, the network characterized those protests as riots:
Doyle, O’Reilly didn’t have the time last night but would like to say many thanks for the riot piece last night. WCBS-TV and WCAU-TV both took the entire piece, instead of stripping it for pix. They called to say thanks for a fine piece. Thanks again. Your piece made the late feed, a winner last night.
At the time, as reported, Argentine soldiers fired into crowds. Protesters stormed the presidential palace. A CBS photographer got caught in the chaos and O’Reilly — citing blood coming from his ear and being injured — “dragged him out of there.” Add it all up, O’Reilly was covering the Falklands War from Argentina (as almost all reporters were), and while the riot that occurred after Argentina surrendered wasn’t technically in the war zone, it certainly had the elements of one during that particular riot. Again, semantics.
And for Corn to write that O’Reilly claimed to be on the Falklands is patently dishonest, which may explain why major media –outside of Fox’s rival CNN and its media critic Brian Stelter — has largely dismissed this story as the nothing-burger it is.
Late yesterday, O’Reilly’s former CBS colleague Eric Engberg made the claim that O’Reilly might as well been at a spring break destination by saying, “It was not a war zone or even close. It was an ‘expense account zone.’”
Of course, very few are exploring motive here when it comes to Engberg either. For those keeping score at home, this is a very easy dot to connect as to why Engberg — who called O’Reilly a “bloviator”in his opening sentence of his “revelation” — suddenly felt compelled to come forward.
As many of you know, Bernie Goldberg is a Fox News Contributor — primarily dissecting stories focusing on media on The O’Reilly Factor and Kelly File. Goldberg also worked for CBS News as an award-winning reporter for 28 years, where he complained about internal liberal bias to upper management within the organization with no success.
Here’s what happened after Goldberg decided to share his perspective with the general public per a2002 book review of Goldberg’s best-selling Bias by the Houston Objectivism Society’s Warren Ross:
by Joe Concha | 10:16 am, February 22nd, 2015379
Upon watching the Bill O’Reilly controversy (or lack thereof) unfold over the past few days, it’s hard not to keep going back to the same theme:
Motive.
As in: Is the Mother Jones story (or non-story) one in search of simple truth or is it a hit piece politically or personally motivated by writer David Corn? The “liberal Mother Jones versus conservative Fox News” theme could suffice as motive on the surface, but this onion seems to have a few more layers to it, and it stinks.
As few are noting, Mr. Corn worked for Fox News as a contributor from 2001-2008. His career would end abruptly there, as the network decided not to renew his contract (which is a nice way of firing someone). Corn would go on to make an impact in the 2012 presidential election after receiving that infamous tape of Mitt Romney‘s “47 percent” comments. It’s still hilarious to see all the acclaim Corn got for basically signing for a FedEx package and uploading a tape to the Mother Jones website. He even won a Polk Award for the effort, even though it was Jimmy Carter‘s grandson who introduced the guy who actually recorded Romney (Scott Prouty) with Corn. Talk about a silver platter, but that never stops Corn from still mentioning it as if he’s trying to beat some kind of quota when appearing on MSNBC, where he serves as a contributor.
So when we look at why Corn would refute O’Reilly’s account of his time working for CBS in Argentina as a reporter covering the Falklands War in 1982, keep all of that in mind in terms of personal and political motivation. As for finding fault in O’Reilly’s account, this appears to be a case of semantics. Note: O’Reilly never said he was on the Falkland Islands, as the Corn piece claims — he’s been consistent in stating he was always in Argentina (Buenos Aires) at the time.
Skeptics — largely from left-leaning blogs — charge that Argentina wasn’t part of the war zone, therefore making O’Reilly a liar for stating he was. But protests there following the war did turn violent. In an internal CBS memo to then-Buenos Aires bureau chief Larry Doyle, the network characterized those protests as riots:
Doyle, O’Reilly didn’t have the time last night but would like to say many thanks for the riot piece last night. WCBS-TV and WCAU-TV both took the entire piece, instead of stripping it for pix. They called to say thanks for a fine piece. Thanks again. Your piece made the late feed, a winner last night.
At the time, as reported, Argentine soldiers fired into crowds. Protesters stormed the presidential palace. A CBS photographer got caught in the chaos and O’Reilly — citing blood coming from his ear and being injured — “dragged him out of there.” Add it all up, O’Reilly was covering the Falklands War from Argentina (as almost all reporters were), and while the riot that occurred after Argentina surrendered wasn’t technically in the war zone, it certainly had the elements of one during that particular riot. Again, semantics.
And for Corn to write that O’Reilly claimed to be on the Falklands is patently dishonest, which may explain why major media –outside of Fox’s rival CNN and its media critic Brian Stelter — has largely dismissed this story as the nothing-burger it is.
Late yesterday, O’Reilly’s former CBS colleague Eric Engberg made the claim that O’Reilly might as well been at a spring break destination by saying, “It was not a war zone or even close. It was an ‘expense account zone.’”
Of course, very few are exploring motive here when it comes to Engberg either. For those keeping score at home, this is a very easy dot to connect as to why Engberg — who called O’Reilly a “bloviator”in his opening sentence of his “revelation” — suddenly felt compelled to come forward.
As many of you know, Bernie Goldberg is a Fox News Contributor — primarily dissecting stories focusing on media on The O’Reilly Factor and Kelly File. Goldberg also worked for CBS News as an award-winning reporter for 28 years, where he complained about internal liberal bias to upper management within the organization with no success.
Here’s what happened after Goldberg decided to share his perspective with the general public per a2002 book review of Goldberg’s best-selling Bias by the Houston Objectivism Society’s Warren Ross:
In 1996, he (Goldberg) “went public,” publishing an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal accusing CBS of bias and fully critiquing an Eric Engberg story supposedly providing a “reality check” on Steve Forbes’ flat tax proposal. Despite the story’s billing as “news,” Goldberg noted that it used all the following techniques of distortion: loaded words (“scheme” and “elixir”), omission of anyone supporting Forbes’ idea (though a number of prominent economists were available), omission of affiliation of “experts” opposing the idea, and snide characterization (Engberg called it a “wacky” proposal that should be tried first in Albania). Goldberg used this egregious example as a starting point to support a broader charge of left-wing bias at the networks, and to explain why the big three TV networks were losing viewers.
Engberg has complained for years about Goldberg singling him out. So what better way to get back at Goldberg and smear O’Reilly and Fox News in the process by disputing O’Reilly’s claim about a riot that absolutely did happen and was even a lead story at the time on the CBS Evening News? Again,motives are worth bring into question. Engberg was invited on O’Reilly’s show on Monday to debate the topic, but he predictably refused (he did have time to appear on Reliable Sources for a 30 minutes on Sunday morning). After all, would be hard to win such a debate with things like internal CBS memos and video supporting the host of the program.
Here’s the net-net of the Corn column: Come Tuesday, this story will be dead. Unlike Brian Williams — whom O’Reilly was actually more compassionate to than most during his downfall — the Factor host will not be suspended, reprimanded or even scratched by this non-troversy.
Welcome to the Hunger Games that the media has become in 2015: A polarized game of survival where media members are taking sides against each other.
And the general public yawns at the ridiculousness of it all.
Engberg has complained for years about Goldberg singling him out. So what better way to get back at Goldberg and smear O’Reilly and Fox News in the process by disputing O’Reilly’s claim about a riot that absolutely did happen and was even a lead story at the time on the CBS Evening News? Again,motives are worth bring into question. Engberg was invited on O’Reilly’s show on Monday to debate the topic, but he predictably refused (he did have time to appear on Reliable Sources for a 30 minutes on Sunday morning). After all, would be hard to win such a debate with things like internal CBS memos and video supporting the host of the program.
Here’s the net-net of the Corn column: Come Tuesday, this story will be dead. Unlike Brian Williams — whom O’Reilly was actually more compassionate to than most during his downfall — the Factor host will not be suspended, reprimanded or even scratched by this non-troversy.
Welcome to the Hunger Games that the media has become in 2015: A polarized game of survival where media members are taking sides against each other.
And the general public yawns at the ridiculousness of it all.
The thing about O'Reilly is he likes limelight and telling stories. No doubt he will exaggerate about these ones also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Show, Produced By O'Reilly, Tells Stories of the Wild West
FOX News Channel (FNC) will present a 10-week run of historical episodic specials entitled, Legends & Lies: Into the West, with the first installment debuting on Sunday, April 12th from 8-9PM/ET, announced Bill Shine, Senior Executive Vice President, FOX News.
Executive produced by FNC’s Bill O’Reilly, the hour-long episodes will recount the tales of the greatest characters of America’s Wild West, including Jesse James, David Crockett, Doc Holliday and Billy the Kid.
Each week, Legends & Lies will feature a portrayal of the critical moment that made each American hero renowned, along with first-hand accounts from direct descendants and historians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Show, Produced By O'Reilly, Tells Stories of the Wild West
FOX News Channel (FNC) will present a 10-week run of historical episodic specials entitled, Legends & Lies: Into the West, with the first installment debuting on Sunday, April 12th from 8-9PM/ET, announced Bill Shine, Senior Executive Vice President, FOX News.
Executive produced by FNC’s Bill O’Reilly, the hour-long episodes will recount the tales of the greatest characters of America’s Wild West, including Jesse James, David Crockett, Doc Holliday and Billy the Kid.
Each week, Legends & Lies will feature a portrayal of the critical moment that made each American hero renowned, along with first-hand accounts from direct descendants and historians.
O'Reilly is probably a better historian than political pundit.
O'Reilly is a real Drama Queen.
Now he wants them to stop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Has Released The Falklands Protest Footage Bill O'Reilly Asked For. It Doesn't Support His Claims.
The Fox News host says he was in a "war zone" where police gunned down civilians. The video doesn't show that.
Today, an Argentine historian named Federico G. Lorenz, who has written extensively on the Falklands war, told the Washington Post:
As far as I know, there were no people killed at the protests after the news of the Argentine surrendering arrived to [Buenos Aires]. There were incidents at May Square…and people slightly injured due to gasses and anti riot munition, but not dead people. Press from June 15, 1982, reports about 5 buses burnt "many detainees and injured people." One of the photographs shows precisely a wounded [person] lying surrounded by people.
As he showed the CBS footage on his show, O'Reilly claimed that unidentified local media sources had reported fatalities. "We don't know how many deaths," he remarked. And he insisted, "I told it exactly the way it was." Referring to the controversy about his Falklands claims, he said, "I want to stop this now. I hope we can stop it."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/cbs-releases-falklands-protest-footage-bill-oreilly
Now he wants them to stop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Has Released The Falklands Protest Footage Bill O'Reilly Asked For. It Doesn't Support His Claims.
The Fox News host says he was in a "war zone" where police gunned down civilians. The video doesn't show that.
Today, an Argentine historian named Federico G. Lorenz, who has written extensively on the Falklands war, told the Washington Post:
As far as I know, there were no people killed at the protests after the news of the Argentine surrendering arrived to [Buenos Aires]. There were incidents at May Square…and people slightly injured due to gasses and anti riot munition, but not dead people. Press from June 15, 1982, reports about 5 buses burnt "many detainees and injured people." One of the photographs shows precisely a wounded [person] lying surrounded by people.
As he showed the CBS footage on his show, O'Reilly claimed that unidentified local media sources had reported fatalities. "We don't know how many deaths," he remarked. And he insisted, "I told it exactly the way it was." Referring to the controversy about his Falklands claims, he said, "I want to stop this now. I hope we can stop it."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/cbs-releases-falklands-protest-footage-bill-oreilly
Bill O’Reilly and Fox News Redouble Defense of His Falklands Reporting
David Corn, one of the reporters on the Mother Jones piece, said that the issue was not whether Mr. O’Reilly had reported on a violent protest, but whether Mr. O’Reilly had reported from a war zone.
Former CBS News staff members said on Monday that Mr. O’Reilly’s account of his reporting on the protests in Argentina was flawed. Eric Engberg, a correspondent for CBS News for 27 years, reported on the same riot near the presidential palace in Buenos Aires in June 1982 as Mr. O’Reilly. He said in an interview that several CBS News camera crews were sent out to cover the angry crowds, who had heard that Argentina surrendered the disputed Falkland Islands to Britain. Though the crowd was unruly, Mr. Engberg said, the rest of the CBS News crew, which included veterans of war zones, thought “it was the chummiest riot anyone had ever covered.”
Mr. O’Reilly’s efforts to refute the claims by Mother Jones and some former CBS News colleagues occurred both on the air and off on Monday. During a phone conversation, he told a reporter for The New York Times that there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter’s coverage was inappropriate. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Mr. O’Reilly said. “You can take it as a threat.”
On Monday’s show, Mr. O’Reilly ended his segment about the controversy saying he hoped to move past the dispute. “I want to stop this now,” he said. “I hope we can stop it. I really do.”.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/b...ouble-defense-of-his-falklands-reporting.html
David Corn, one of the reporters on the Mother Jones piece, said that the issue was not whether Mr. O’Reilly had reported on a violent protest, but whether Mr. O’Reilly had reported from a war zone.
Former CBS News staff members said on Monday that Mr. O’Reilly’s account of his reporting on the protests in Argentina was flawed. Eric Engberg, a correspondent for CBS News for 27 years, reported on the same riot near the presidential palace in Buenos Aires in June 1982 as Mr. O’Reilly. He said in an interview that several CBS News camera crews were sent out to cover the angry crowds, who had heard that Argentina surrendered the disputed Falkland Islands to Britain. Though the crowd was unruly, Mr. Engberg said, the rest of the CBS News crew, which included veterans of war zones, thought “it was the chummiest riot anyone had ever covered.”
Mr. O’Reilly’s efforts to refute the claims by Mother Jones and some former CBS News colleagues occurred both on the air and off on Monday. During a phone conversation, he told a reporter for The New York Times that there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter’s coverage was inappropriate. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Mr. O’Reilly said. “You can take it as a threat.”
On Monday’s show, Mr. O’Reilly ended his segment about the controversy saying he hoped to move past the dispute. “I want to stop this now,” he said. “I hope we can stop it. I really do.”.
.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/b...ouble-defense-of-his-falklands-reporting.html
Does Charles Krause have any kind of axe against O'Reilly or Fox ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Former Colleague Refutes Bill O'Reilly's 'Absurd' Falklands War Stories
Now, yet another former colleague has come forward in an interview with progressive watchdog group Media Matters, calling O'Reilly's tales "absurd" and claiming that the then-correspondent did not play "any significant role" in CBS News' coverage of the war.
"I don't recall him doing any major story that anybody remembers and he was there a very short time. Then he was recalled, I don't know why," former CBS News correspondent Charles Krause said. "He wasn't a team player and people thought he was grandstanding, basically."
Krause -- who worked at CBS News from 1980 to 1983, and claims to have been in Argentina at the same time as O'Reilly in '82 -- rejected the idea that the riots taking place some 1,200 miles from the Falklands in Buenos Aires met such a standard.
"That's absurd because Buenos Aires was Buenos Aires," Krause said, adding that people might have been demonstrating or "scuffling," rather than rioting. "It was just like it always was; there was very little evidence of the war in Buenos Aires. The war was being fought thousands of miles away."
Krause also said he doesn't remember a cameraman being injured during their reporting, while O'Reilly claims he dragged a man "bleeding from the ear" to safety. According to Krause, the CBS News crew largely stayed out of harm's way.
"We were in no danger whatsoever."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...056.html?cps=gravity_2429_8955327050196403704
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Former Colleague Refutes Bill O'Reilly's 'Absurd' Falklands War Stories
Now, yet another former colleague has come forward in an interview with progressive watchdog group Media Matters, calling O'Reilly's tales "absurd" and claiming that the then-correspondent did not play "any significant role" in CBS News' coverage of the war.
"I don't recall him doing any major story that anybody remembers and he was there a very short time. Then he was recalled, I don't know why," former CBS News correspondent Charles Krause said. "He wasn't a team player and people thought he was grandstanding, basically."
Krause -- who worked at CBS News from 1980 to 1983, and claims to have been in Argentina at the same time as O'Reilly in '82 -- rejected the idea that the riots taking place some 1,200 miles from the Falklands in Buenos Aires met such a standard.
"That's absurd because Buenos Aires was Buenos Aires," Krause said, adding that people might have been demonstrating or "scuffling," rather than rioting. "It was just like it always was; there was very little evidence of the war in Buenos Aires. The war was being fought thousands of miles away."
Krause also said he doesn't remember a cameraman being injured during their reporting, while O'Reilly claims he dragged a man "bleeding from the ear" to safety. According to Krause, the CBS News crew largely stayed out of harm's way.
"We were in no danger whatsoever."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...056.html?cps=gravity_2429_8955327050196403704
Last edited:
The amusing part is that CBS's own coverage shows the "scuffles" or "riots" in Argentina at the time. It would be very difficult for any reasonable person to deny at this point that O'Reilly was in Buenos Aires at this time or that he was out on the streets reporting in an heated protesting atmosphere. Of course the CBS crew attempted to stay out of harms way, this is a precaution that any reasonable news crew would take.
It appears that the left wants to blow up nothing into something.... simply because Brian Williams was caught telling multiple whoppers and ejected (for now) from a network.
And if you don't think that reporting from Argentina is dangerous then watch the video of Argentinian protestors attacking the Top Gun crew in 2014 because the people in Argentina still don't like the British decades after the Falkland war.
Fox Should be 'Fair and Balanced' and Suspend Bill O'Reilly for Lying About a 'War Zone'
America has vilified Brian Williams for lying and NBC suspended him for six months. Bill O'Reilly was not in a war zone and wasn't in a combat situation. Can anyone explain how O'Reilly is better, or more deserving of leniency than Brian Williams?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/fox-should-be-fair-and-ba_b_6741946.html
America has vilified Brian Williams for lying and NBC suspended him for six months. Bill O'Reilly was not in a war zone and wasn't in a combat situation. Can anyone explain how O'Reilly is better, or more deserving of leniency than Brian Williams?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/fox-should-be-fair-and-ba_b_6741946.html
Last edited:
Speaking about lying (since this thread got derailed)....
Obama VA Secretary blatantly lied about his service experience ... on national tv
VA chief falsely claimed special forces service
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald falsely claimed that he served in a military special forces unit, he admitted to the Huffington Post.
When a homeless veteran told McDonald in a conversation captured by CBS that he had served in special forces, the head of the VA replied that he had, too. The conversation aired during a CBS News story chronicling how the agency is working to house homeless veterans.
“I have no excuse,” McDonald told The Huffington Post. “I was not in special forces.”
He added that he “reacted spontaneously” and “wrongly [with] no intent in any way to describe my record as any different than it is."
McDonald, who was confirmed in July of 2014, served in the 82nd Airborne Division and completed his Army Ranger training, earning the coveted Ranger tab. Although he completed that training, he never actually served in a special forces unit.
Special forces units are considered one of the most elite assignments in the military and include the Army Rangers, Green Berets and Navy SEALS.
"Secretary McDonald has apologized for the misstatement and noted that he never intended to misrepresent his military service," the White House said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
"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."
The flap comes just weeks after NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted that he lied about flying in a helicopter shot by enemy forces while reporting in Iraq.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...d-special-forces-service#.VOv3ro273EE.twitter
Obama VA Secretary blatantly lied about his service experience ... on national tv
VA chief falsely claimed special forces service
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald falsely claimed that he served in a military special forces unit, he admitted to the Huffington Post.
When a homeless veteran told McDonald in a conversation captured by CBS that he had served in special forces, the head of the VA replied that he had, too. The conversation aired during a CBS News story chronicling how the agency is working to house homeless veterans.
“I have no excuse,” McDonald told The Huffington Post. “I was not in special forces.”
He added that he “reacted spontaneously” and “wrongly [with] no intent in any way to describe my record as any different than it is."
McDonald, who was confirmed in July of 2014, served in the 82nd Airborne Division and completed his Army Ranger training, earning the coveted Ranger tab. Although he completed that training, he never actually served in a special forces unit.
Special forces units are considered one of the most elite assignments in the military and include the Army Rangers, Green Berets and Navy SEALS.
"Secretary McDonald has apologized for the misstatement and noted that he never intended to misrepresent his military service," the White House said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
"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."
The flap comes just weeks after NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted that he lied about flying in a helicopter shot by enemy forces while reporting in Iraq.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...d-special-forces-service#.VOv3ro273EE.twitter