Bill O'Reilly lied about coverage of combat in Falklands War, acted in disruptive manner

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
51,193
Reaction score
11,544
Points
2,030
Location
Within and without you
Bill O'Reilly lied about coverage of combat in Falklands War, acted in disruptive manner: ex-CBS colleague

The accusations continue to pile on for Bill O'Reilly about whether or not he did in fact cover a combat zone when reporting on the Falklands War in 1982.

Another former colleague who was with O'Reilly claimed in a lengthy post on his Facebook page the scene was nothing more than "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty."

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg wrote the "bloviater" O'Reilly, who was "full of brio and confidence," was misrepresenting the situation to "burnish his credentials as a ‘war correspondent’" and should be "ashamed of himself."

"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," Engberg wrote. "And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced."

Engberg and O'Reilly were two of five correspondents dispatched to cover the conflict off the coast of Argentina in 1982, but the group was in Buenos Aires — about a thousand miles away from the conflict.

"To begin with 'covering' is an overstatement of what we were doing," Engberg wrote. "We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts."

The American reporters "were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone,'" he wrote.

When Argentina surrendered, a group of reporters were sent to the streets to cover the mass public's angry reaction.

"O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading," he said.

The reporters had been instructed not to turn on their lights out of fear the people would react violently to American journalists because of the country's support of Britain in the conflict, he wrote. But O'Reilly demanded his cameraman use his lights for his reports,

And when O'Reilly was told his footage would be used in a main package narrated by the anchor Bob Schieffer, he exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man."

This led to Larry Doyle, the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, telling CBS that O'Reilly had become a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion and he was sent home, Engberg wrote.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
who gives a rats ass. O'Reilly doesn't claim to be a war/foreign policy correspondent Williams lied right in your face, covered up for Hillary and Obama AND you dingbats on the left can only dig on bill O'reilly...just stupid tools. I swear
 

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,249
Reaction score
4,918
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
Bill O'Reilly lied about coverage of combat in Falklands War, acted in disruptive manner: ex-CBS colleague

The accusations continue to pile on for Bill O'Reilly about whether or not he did in fact cover a combat zone when reporting on the Falklands War in 1982.

Another former colleague who was with O'Reilly claimed in a lengthy post on his Facebook page the scene was nothing more than "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty."

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg wrote the "bloviater" O'Reilly, who was "full of brio and confidence," was misrepresenting the situation to "burnish his credentials as a ‘war correspondent’" and should be "ashamed of himself."

"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," Engberg wrote. "And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced."

Engberg and O'Reilly were two of five correspondents dispatched to cover the conflict off the coast of Argentina in 1982, but the group was in Buenos Aires — about a thousand miles away from the conflict.

"To begin with 'covering' is an overstatement of what we were doing," Engberg wrote. "We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts."

The American reporters "were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone,'" he wrote.

When Argentina surrendered, a group of reporters were sent to the streets to cover the mass public's angry reaction.

"O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading," he said.

The reporters had been instructed not to turn on their lights out of fear the people would react violently to American journalists because of the country's support of Britain in the conflict, he wrote. But O'Reilly demanded his cameraman use his lights for his reports,

And when O'Reilly was told his footage would be used in a main package narrated by the anchor Bob Schieffer, he exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man."

This led to Larry Doyle, the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, telling CBS that O'Reilly had become a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion and he was sent home, Engberg wrote.
O'Reilly has already debunked the false claim that he had said he was in the Faulklands.

You libs just looking for something to ease the pain of your boy Brian getting shot out of the saddle.

Go piss up a rope!
 

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,249
Reaction score
4,918
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
O'Reilly found memos from 33 years ago that proved the attacks were lies.

Catch up with the REAL NEWS, you synthetic person! Watch The No Spin Zone~!
 
OP
Synthaholic

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
51,193
Reaction score
11,544
Points
2,030
Location
Within and without you
Bill O'Reilly lied about coverage of combat in Falklands War, acted in disruptive manner: ex-CBS colleague

The accusations continue to pile on for Bill O'Reilly about whether or not he did in fact cover a combat zone when reporting on the Falklands War in 1982.

Another former colleague who was with O'Reilly claimed in a lengthy post on his Facebook page the scene was nothing more than "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty."

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg wrote the "bloviater" O'Reilly, who was "full of brio and confidence," was misrepresenting the situation to "burnish his credentials as a ‘war correspondent’" and should be "ashamed of himself."

"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," Engberg wrote. "And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced."

Engberg and O'Reilly were two of five correspondents dispatched to cover the conflict off the coast of Argentina in 1982, but the group was in Buenos Aires — about a thousand miles away from the conflict.

"To begin with 'covering' is an overstatement of what we were doing," Engberg wrote. "We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts."

The American reporters "were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone,'" he wrote.

When Argentina surrendered, a group of reporters were sent to the streets to cover the mass public's angry reaction.

"O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading," he said.

The reporters had been instructed not to turn on their lights out of fear the people would react violently to American journalists because of the country's support of Britain in the conflict, he wrote. But O'Reilly demanded his cameraman use his lights for his reports,

And when O'Reilly was told his footage would be used in a main package narrated by the anchor Bob Schieffer, he exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man."

This led to Larry Doyle, the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, telling CBS that O'Reilly had become a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion and he was sent home, Engberg wrote.
O'Reilly has already debunked the false claim that he had said he was in the Faulklands.

You libs just looking for something to ease the pain of your boy Brian getting shot out of the saddle.

Go piss up a rope!
He said he was in the Faulkands. He said he was in a combat zone. Both are lies.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Bill O'Reilly lied about coverage of combat in Falklands War, acted in disruptive manner: ex-CBS colleague

The accusations continue to pile on for Bill O'Reilly about whether or not he did in fact cover a combat zone when reporting on the Falklands War in 1982.

Another former colleague who was with O'Reilly claimed in a lengthy post on his Facebook page the scene was nothing more than "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty."

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg wrote the "bloviater" O'Reilly, who was "full of brio and confidence," was misrepresenting the situation to "burnish his credentials as a ‘war correspondent’" and should be "ashamed of himself."

"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," Engberg wrote. "And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced."

Engberg and O'Reilly were two of five correspondents dispatched to cover the conflict off the coast of Argentina in 1982, but the group was in Buenos Aires — about a thousand miles away from the conflict.

"To begin with 'covering' is an overstatement of what we were doing," Engberg wrote. "We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts."

The American reporters "were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone,'" he wrote.

When Argentina surrendered, a group of reporters were sent to the streets to cover the mass public's angry reaction.

"O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading," he said.

The reporters had been instructed not to turn on their lights out of fear the people would react violently to American journalists because of the country's support of Britain in the conflict, he wrote. But O'Reilly demanded his cameraman use his lights for his reports,

And when O'Reilly was told his footage would be used in a main package narrated by the anchor Bob Schieffer, he exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man."

This led to Larry Doyle, the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, telling CBS that O'Reilly had become a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion and he was sent home, Engberg wrote.
O'Reilly has already debunked the false claim that he had said he was in the Faulklands.

You libs just looking for something to ease the pain of your boy Brian getting shot out of the saddle.

Go piss up a rope!
He said he was in the Faulkands. He said he was in a combat zone. Both are lies.
do you really think anyone cares about bill O'reilly? he is a host of a nightly show. Williams was a political and war correspondent. . It doesn't bother you he lied right to your face and mislead the people in the country? you should chose more wisely on what you post and who gets to leads you around by the nose. that way you won't look so far out in the twilight zone all the time
 
Last edited:

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,249
Reaction score
4,918
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
Bill O'Reilly lied about coverage of combat in Falklands War, acted in disruptive manner: ex-CBS colleague

The accusations continue to pile on for Bill O'Reilly about whether or not he did in fact cover a combat zone when reporting on the Falklands War in 1982.

Another former colleague who was with O'Reilly claimed in a lengthy post on his Facebook page the scene was nothing more than "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty."

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg wrote the "bloviater" O'Reilly, who was "full of brio and confidence," was misrepresenting the situation to "burnish his credentials as a ‘war correspondent’" and should be "ashamed of himself."

"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," Engberg wrote. "And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced."

Engberg and O'Reilly were two of five correspondents dispatched to cover the conflict off the coast of Argentina in 1982, but the group was in Buenos Aires — about a thousand miles away from the conflict.

"To begin with 'covering' is an overstatement of what we were doing," Engberg wrote. "We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts."

The American reporters "were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone,'" he wrote.

When Argentina surrendered, a group of reporters were sent to the streets to cover the mass public's angry reaction.

"O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading," he said.

The reporters had been instructed not to turn on their lights out of fear the people would react violently to American journalists because of the country's support of Britain in the conflict, he wrote. But O'Reilly demanded his cameraman use his lights for his reports,

And when O'Reilly was told his footage would be used in a main package narrated by the anchor Bob Schieffer, he exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man."

This led to Larry Doyle, the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, telling CBS that O'Reilly had become a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion and he was sent home, Engberg wrote.
O'Reilly has already debunked the false claim that he had said he was in the Faulklands.

You libs just looking for something to ease the pain of your boy Brian getting shot out of the saddle.

Go piss up a rope!
He said he was in the Faulkands. He said he was in a combat zone. Both are lies.
I repeat...that has been debunked.
 

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow
Why is this even news? :rolleyes-41:

Whether a reporter goes to the Falklands or Mars, why does it matter.

It isn't like O'Reilly is a politician claiming he was 'under fire', even if this silly story was true. :popcorn:
 
OP
Synthaholic

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
51,193
Reaction score
11,544
Points
2,030
Location
Within and without you
How many times does this have to be dedunked?
Once?
It has been your inability to accept this doesn't change it.
drip...drip...drip...

Seven CBS Staffers Discredit Bill O’Reilly’s “War Zone” Claims

Seven people who worked for CBS during the Falklands War essentially say that Bill O’Relliy is lying about his experiences. CNN talked to seven of O’Reilly’s former colleagues—four of whom asked for anonymity—and they all challenge his description of Bueons Aires as a “war zone” and “combat situation.” In addition, none of them have any recollection of a CBS cameraman being injured as O’Reilly claims. "Nobody remembers this happening," said Manny Alvarez, who worked as a cameraman for CBS News in Buenos Aires.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top