http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html
His site, which is on Fox's website, seems just fine.
His site, which is on Fox's website, seems just fine.
Tom Cotton Wants To Punish Countries That Take Guantanamo Prisoners -- Including U.S. Allies
- Thread starter Spike Trader
- Start date
Would you pay more attention to O'Reilly if he had lied in some news story he told, say, three or four years ago? : )
I might have paid some attention if I found O'Reilly had lied. Especially it was part of a pattern.
If this isn't a pattern of lies and threats, then tell me what is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's Every Claim Made Against Bill O'Reilly So Far
The list of accusations leveled at Bill O'Reilly grows by the day.
What began as a probe into the veracity of the Fox News host's war reporting experience has now snowballed into a slew of alleged lies, exaggerations and inaccuracies.
If you're having trouble keeping all these shifting stories straight, we've got your back. Here are all the major developments so far in The People vs. Bill O'Reilly:
Count 1: Bill O'Reilly Exaggerated His 'War Reporting' Chops
Count 2: O'Reilly Lied About Witnessing The Suicide of George de Mohrenschildt
Count 3: O'Reilly Lied About Witnessing The Execution Of Four Salvadoran Nuns
Count 4: Bill O'Reilly Lied About Being Attacked During The LA Riots
Count 5: O'Reilly Threatened Journalists From Mother Jones and The New York Times
But after all the evidence has been compiled -- from from Buenos Aires to El Salvador to Dallas, Texas, and back again -- is Bill O'Reilly ultimately guilty in the court of public opinion? Did he lie to his audience, threatening journalists along the way? What should the consequence be? That's for the public to decide.
Read the full stories below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...so-far_n_6760320.html?utm_hp_ref=bill-oreilly
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's Every Claim Made Against Bill O'Reilly So Far
The list of accusations leveled at Bill O'Reilly grows by the day.
What began as a probe into the veracity of the Fox News host's war reporting experience has now snowballed into a slew of alleged lies, exaggerations and inaccuracies.
If you're having trouble keeping all these shifting stories straight, we've got your back. Here are all the major developments so far in The People vs. Bill O'Reilly:
Count 1: Bill O'Reilly Exaggerated His 'War Reporting' Chops
Count 2: O'Reilly Lied About Witnessing The Suicide of George de Mohrenschildt
Count 3: O'Reilly Lied About Witnessing The Execution Of Four Salvadoran Nuns
Count 4: Bill O'Reilly Lied About Being Attacked During The LA Riots
Count 5: O'Reilly Threatened Journalists From Mother Jones and The New York Times
But after all the evidence has been compiled -- from from Buenos Aires to El Salvador to Dallas, Texas, and back again -- is Bill O'Reilly ultimately guilty in the court of public opinion? Did he lie to his audience, threatening journalists along the way? What should the consequence be? That's for the public to decide.
Read the full stories below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...so-far_n_6760320.html?utm_hp_ref=bill-oreilly
Any one of those could affect a reader.
; )
No, he didn't lie and who cares if he threatened some dirtbag leftwing hacks. He shorthanded some descriptions of events in ways that made him look more macho maybe, but no one seriously examining what he said would have concluded that, for example, he was standing there when the nuns were shot.
This is a standard tactic of leftwing attack sites like Media Matters. They take some obvious hyperbole or sarcastic remark by Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, then treat it like it was meant literally. Then they triumphantly proclaim that it is factually untrue. Duh.. of course it is, that's why it is hyperbole or sarcasm.
This attack on O'Reilly might have a tiny bit of relevance if (1) liberal news people don't routinely lie about things, eg AGW or racism, with no consequencies, and (2) if O'Reilly were a news anchor. He's not. He's a commentator. He offers opinion.
This is a standard tactic of leftwing attack sites like Media Matters. They take some obvious hyperbole or sarcastic remark by Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, then treat it like it was meant literally. Then they triumphantly proclaim that it is factually untrue. Duh.. of course it is, that's why it is hyperbole or sarcasm.
This attack on O'Reilly might have a tiny bit of relevance if (1) liberal news people don't routinely lie about things, eg AGW or racism, with no consequencies, and (2) if O'Reilly were a news anchor. He's not. He's a commentator. He offers opinion.
Lol, are you stupid? Spike's post was "obvious hyperbole".
So I took the time to read the article to give you the benefit of the doubt. It was as I thought - a complete waste of time. Even Huffpo has no proof of anything, just speculation.
Count 1 is a matter of interpretation. Count 2 cannot be proven or disproved. Count 3 seems a slight exaggeration, but Orielly did in fact see nuns get shot in the back of the head - just on tape. Since he really didn't say otherwise, it's hard to pin him down. Count 4, again, no evidence just the word of a former colleague. If anything is a pattern, it would appear a few former colleagues are not fans of Bill's success. Count 5 is exaggeration on the part of Mother Jones - further dramatized by them saying things like "we're worried about the lives of our staff" like Bill Oreilly is going to go out and murder people or something. Grow a pair, MJ.
So at the end of the day, does it appear Bill might have exaggerated a few things? Perhaps, but all we have is a HuffPo article and the supposed quotes of one or two of his former colleagues. And HuffPo's credibility is right down there with the worst of them, so unless you've got better links, I don't lend any truth to it.
That's about all the time I care to waste on a topic that really doesn't matter to me. Fox continues to soar in it's ratings, OReilly is more popular than ever, and you're just as jealous as you were before.
End Copy.
So why did they 'put him away' ?
I don't know what you mean "put him away".