Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NBC is exposed for the lying shitbag gaggle it is, now all the Marxists are trying to deflect their humiliation onto Bill O'Reilly...half a century ago! That's not desperation, that's out and out panic.
Of course they're not........like most liehard conservatives, they will make excuses and try semantics to make O'Reilly look honorable.........good luck....I think he's credibility is sunk.....the only ones taking him seriously will be the idiots that watch Faux News....they don't care....they're used to the lies........bwahahaha!
The major difference between liberals caught lying and rightwingers caught lying is how they respond.
Williams and McDonald both admitted their mistakes and apologized publicly.
O'Spinly is continuing to lie and is threatening everyone who can prove that he is a liar.
So much for personal responsibility and integrity values from the right.
O'Lielly isn't a respected newsman, he's a paid propagandist. He'll keep his job.
O'Lielly isn't a respected newsman, he's a paid propagandist. He'll keep his job.
O'Spinly does this faux outrage act whenever he is caught out. Remember the loofah story?
Yes, he is doing this to boost his ratings so Faux Noise won't fire him because it is all about the money, honesty and integrity be damned.
Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?
Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.
Except that I didn't care, moron.
it is funny that liberals were calling for BW's head, then they realized that if BW has to go down a Con has to go down, then out went the call from all progressive libturds to get dirt on some con.
None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.
Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico
By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.
So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.
The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)
But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."
Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.
Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")
There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."
The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.
Going to be interesting watching him trying to threaten his way out of this lie.
Maybe you'll get lucky this time. Maybe this won't be a complete lie like the Mother Jones story was.
Maybe.
it is funny that liberals were calling for BW's head, then they realized that if BW has to go down a Con has to go down, then out went the call from all progressive libturds to get dirt on some con.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Ha ha! You left wing nutters are desperate. You guys do know that he isn't running for anything right?
Ha,ha, neither was Williams, but you sure didn't think it was desperation then......hypocrite.
Except that I didn't care, moron.
And now suddenly you do.
None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.
Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico
By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.
So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.
The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)
But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."
Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.
Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")
There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."
The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.
The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.
This whole thing is dead in the water.
war on xmas isn't real?
Going to be interesting watching him trying to threaten his way out of this lie.
Maybe you'll get lucky this time. Maybe this won't be a complete lie like the Mother Jones story was.
Maybe.
Prove that MJ was found lying. Go ahead. We'll wait right here for you. If they are lying then there should be refutations and laws suits for libel all fucking over the place. Please make sure you provide links.
None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.
Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico
By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.
So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.
The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)
But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."
Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.
Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")
There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."
The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.
The only thing wrong with this article is that they neglect to mention that the CBS reporters are themselves left wing hacks and as such would lie cheat or steal to bring down a conservative.
This whole thing is dead in the water.
"""Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," """
Argentina is not in the Falklands, like Ireland or Scotland is in the U.K. Got it yet?
None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.
NBC is exposed for the lying shitbag gaggle it is, now all the Marxists are trying to deflect their humiliation onto Bill O'Reilly...half a century ago! That's not desperation, that's out and out panic.
