CBS reporter in Argentina recalls O'Reilly's "war zone" antics

[Papageorgio]

At this point being a liar is so much a part of the Bill O'Reilly image that this latest lie story has quickly become a boring issue. Who cares about dishonest FOX NEWS reporters and talking heads? Isn't that what they get paid for?

He's not a reporter. He's a political commentator. You don't see a difference?

Ya, that is the lamest excuse being used to defend FOX. It is OK for them to lie because they are not real journalist, they are entertainers or "commentators". They do however call themselves "FOX News" Doesn't make a difference anymore. It is an old story. FOX and O Reilly get more branding as liars.

Who really cares what a bunch of extreme left wing nutters think.

 

[JimH52]

Bill O Reilly Covered Falklands War From Expense Account Zone Says Fellow CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg Deadline

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Engberg's Facebook page.

O'Reilly, freshly hired by CBS, arrived in Buenos Aires a few days before the British expeditionary force defeated the Argentine occupiers. He was, as he is today, full of brio and confidence. I remember him asking me how I liked my assignment. When I said I was tired of living in a hotel and wanted to go home he said, "Call your agent." Back in those days calling your agent to complain about the company's decision-making would have been a career-ender, but he didn't seem to understand matters of the CBS internal secret wooglies, which included the rule that you did as you were told. I should have known he was headed for trouble, but I just thought he was a rookie who would learn. Yeah, right.
When Doyle informed O'Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O'Reilly, the reporter exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man," he shouted.
O'Reilly has said he was in a situation in Argentina where "my photographer got run down and hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete and the army was chasing us." The only place where such an injury could have occurred was the relatively tame riot I have described above. Neither Doyle, who would have been immediately informed of injury to any CBS personnel, nor anyone else who was working the story remembers a cameraman being injured that night. No one who reported back to our hotel newsroom after the disturbance was injured; if a cameraman had been "bleeding from the ear" he would have immediately reported that to his superiors at the hotel. This part of O'Reilly's Argentina story is not credible without further confirmation, and O'Reilly should identify the cameraman by name so he can be questioned about the alleged injury.
I am fairly certain that most professional journalists would refer to the story I have just related as "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty." O'Reilly, in defending himself yesterday against Corn's "Mother Jones" piece, said "We were in a combat situation in Buenos Aires." He 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. And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced. He also ought to be ashamed of himself. By the way, "Old Man" Schieffer seemed to do okay as a TV journalist in the years (and there were plenty) after O'Reilly claimed to have been "big footed" by him. Maybe "Old Schieffer" called HIS agent.

So Bill lied and even published it in his book....and FOX does not care. I AM SHOCKED.....

Are you so stupid and blinded by your Agenda that you can't see that this guy actually confirms Bill O's story? He confirms there was a riot. However serious it was is subjective. I'm sure a rookie reporter would feel a lot more in fear about such a situation than older veteran ones that have been through worse.

This isn't about journalistic integrity of O'Reilly of thirty years ago, it is about silencing him and his opinions since they aren't in synch with the Agenda.

You are right. It is not about "journalistic integrity." Because Bill O'Reilly has none.

 

[whitehall]

Why do the clowns think O'Reilly's experience in Argentina rises to the status of "current events"? The post belongs in the media forum anyway

 

[JohnAdams]

Since when do people hold anyone on Fox News to journalistic standards? Seriously, people, wake up!!!

 

[Stephanie]

Bill O Reilly Covered Falklands War From Expense Account Zone Says Fellow CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg Deadline

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Engberg's Facebook page.

O'Reilly, freshly hired by CBS, arrived in Buenos Aires a few days before the British expeditionary force defeated the Argentine occupiers. He was, as he is today, full of brio and confidence. I remember him asking me how I liked my assignment. When I said I was tired of living in a hotel and wanted to go home he said, "Call your agent." Back in those days calling your agent to complain about the company's decision-making would have been a career-ender, but he didn't seem to understand matters of the CBS internal secret wooglies, which included the rule that you did as you were told. I should have known he was headed for trouble, but I just thought he was a rookie who would learn. Yeah, right.
When Doyle informed O'Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O'Reilly, the reporter exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man," he shouted.
O'Reilly has said he was in a situation in Argentina where "my photographer got run down and hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete and the army was chasing us." The only place where such an injury could have occurred was the relatively tame riot I have described above. Neither Doyle, who would have been immediately informed of injury to any CBS personnel, nor anyone else who was working the story remembers a cameraman being injured that night. No one who reported back to our hotel newsroom after the disturbance was injured; if a cameraman had been "bleeding from the ear" he would have immediately reported that to his superiors at the hotel. This part of O'Reilly's Argentina story is not credible without further confirmation, and O'Reilly should identify the cameraman by name so he can be questioned about the alleged injury.
I am fairly certain that most professional journalists would refer to the story I have just related as "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty." O'Reilly, in defending himself yesterday against Corn's "Mother Jones" piece, said "We were in a combat situation in Buenos Aires." He 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. And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced. He also ought to be ashamed of himself. By the way, "Old Man" Schieffer seemed to do okay as a TV journalist in the years (and there were plenty) after O'Reilly claimed to have been "big footed" by him. Maybe "Old Schieffer" called HIS agent.

So Bill lied and even published it in his book....and FOX does not care. I AM SHOCKED.....

Are you so stupid and blinded by your Agenda that you can't see that this guy actually confirms Bill O's story? He confirms there was a riot. However serious it was is subjective. I'm sure a rookie reporter would feel a lot more in fear about such a situation than older veteran ones that have been through worse.

This isn't about journalistic integrity of O'Reilly of thirty years ago, it is about silencing him and his opinions since they aren't in synch with the Agenda.

sheep don't see anything, they just baaaaa and march when told to

 

[TooTall]

Bill O Reilly Covered Falklands War From Expense Account Zone Says Fellow CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg Deadline

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Engberg's Facebook page.

O'Reilly, freshly hired by CBS, arrived in Buenos Aires a few days before the British expeditionary force defeated the Argentine occupiers. He was, as he is today, full of brio and confidence. I remember him asking me how I liked my assignment. When I said I was tired of living in a hotel and wanted to go home he said, "Call your agent." Back in those days calling your agent to complain about the company's decision-making would have been a career-ender, but he didn't seem to understand matters of the CBS internal secret wooglies, which included the rule that you did as you were told. I should have known he was headed for trouble, but I just thought he was a rookie who would learn. Yeah, right.
When Doyle informed O'Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O'Reilly, the reporter exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man," he shouted.
O'Reilly has said he was in a situation in Argentina where "my photographer got run down and hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete and the army was chasing us." The only place where such an injury could have occurred was the relatively tame riot I have described above. Neither Doyle, who would have been immediately informed of injury to any CBS personnel, nor anyone else who was working the story remembers a cameraman being injured that night. No one who reported back to our hotel newsroom after the disturbance was injured; if a cameraman had been "bleeding from the ear" he would have immediately reported that to his superiors at the hotel. This part of O'Reilly's Argentina story is not credible without further confirmation, and O'Reilly should identify the cameraman by name so he can be questioned about the alleged injury.
I am fairly certain that most professional journalists would refer to the story I have just related as "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty." O'Reilly, in defending himself yesterday against Corn's "Mother Jones" piece, said "We were in a combat situation in Buenos Aires." He 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. And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced. He also ought to be ashamed of himself. By the way, "Old Man" Schieffer seemed to do okay as a TV journalist in the years (and there were plenty) after O'Reilly claimed to have been "big footed" by him. Maybe "Old Schieffer" called HIS agent.

So Bill lied and even published it in his book....and FOX does not care. I AM SHOCKED.....

"The only place where such an injury could have occurred was the relatively tame riot I have described above."

How many tame riots have you seen? I don't watch O'Reilly, but I can recognize a lie when I see one like that one.

 

[blackhawk]

Still beating that dead horse I see.

 

[Kondor3]

Are you clowns still jerking-off over the O'Reilly copycat drive-by character assassination attempt?

Even if each-and-every charge against O'Reilly is true, the timing (hard on the heels of the Brian Williams massacre) and lesser import (Williams engaged in Stolen Valor in connection with our own troops and military operations, O'Reilly did not) strain both credibility and interest... this is a second-hand dead horse...

Here's a quarter... now, go call somebody who gives a frog's fat ass...

Let it go... better luck next time...

 

[rightwinger]

The only war O'Reilly has been involved with is the War on Christmas

 

[Camp]

Are you clowns still jerking-off over the O'Reilly copycat drive-by character assassination attempt?

Even if each-and-every charge against O'Reilly is true, the timing (hard on the heels of the Brian Williams massacre) and lesser import (Williams engaged in Stolen Valor in connection with our own troops and military operations, O'Reilly did not) strain both credibility and interest... this is a second-hand dead horse...

Here's a quarter... now, go call somebody who gives a frog's fat ass...

Let it go... better luck next time...

Stop trifling the term and definition of Stolen Valor. The term represents a condition when a non veteran claims to have been a veteran and to have seen action during combat. It is the title to a federal law that prevents fakes from wearing medals, uniforms and making those kinds of claim. The term has become a talking point to defend O Reilly by adding an imagined dose of demonization of Williams. Claiming Williams of Stolen Valor is a lie in itself. Trifling the term to include a common liar is an insult to the veterans that worked so hard to get the Stolen Valor law passed in Congress.

 

[Kondor3]

Are you clowns still jerking-off over the O'Reilly copycat drive-by character assassination attempt?

Even if each-and-every charge against O'Reilly is true, the timing (hard on the heels of the Brian Williams massacre) and lesser import (Williams engaged in Stolen Valor in connection with our own troops and military operations, O'Reilly did not) strain both credibility and interest... this is a second-hand dead horse...

Here's a quarter... now, go call somebody who gives a frog's fat ass...

Let it go... better luck next time...

Stop trifling the term and definition of Stolen Valor. The term represents a condition when a non veteran claims to have been a veteran and to have seen action during combat. It is the title to a federal law that prevents fakes from wearing medals, uniforms and making those kinds of claim. The term has become a talking point to defend O Reilly by adding an imagined dose of demonization of Williams. Claiming Williams of Stolen Valor is a lie in itself. Trifling the term to include a common liar is an insult to the veterans that worked so hard to get the Stolen Valor law passed in Congress.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... I'm sure... but the only factor missing from Williams' claims is the 'veteran' part... and it's become a generic term, to express contempt for those who claim to have seen combat alongside our boys and girls in the military.

Within that framework, the usage of the term 'Stolen Valor' is dead-on-target, and it insults absolutely nobody.

Nobody's using it to defend O'Reilly... merely as a yardstick to measure Williams' mountain-sized offense against O'Reilly's supposed molehill-sized offense.

But I'll toss you a bone and begin referring to it as Stolen Valor Civilian-Style... or should I say Scum-Bag style.

Lighten-up, Francis... let's keep our eye on the ball... i.e., the Relative Severity of the offenses of each... rather than getting overly-pissy about the turn of a phrase.